User talk:JoeHebda/Archive 2017

Archive 2010

←

Archive 2015

Archive 2016

Archive 2017

Swapped tips

I swapped the March 2 and March 17 tips, so that the "How to turn redirects green" tip shows up on St. Patrick's day.

I hope you don't mind.

I also updated the links to those 2 tips in the chronolist, the alphalist, and the library. Did I miss anything? The Transhumanist 20:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Greetings @The Transhumanist: That's a good idea & thanks for being bold! On the TOTD talk page, I updated the "March maintenance" as well. Cheers! — JoeHebda • (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Convent of Jesus and Mary, Ambala. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Every article needs references; even a stub ought to have references from the start. Please do not remove the "Unreferenced" template from any article unless it has references. Thanks. PamD 08:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Greetings PamD, A long time ago when I had added cleanup templates to the top of a stub article, another editor reverted those additions. I was advised this is "template overkill" because of existing stubs. Since then from time-to-time whenever I see these top-of-article templates, and the article is already stub, I've been removing these templates. Wondering if this is one of those "gray areas" that allow either condition? Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Tip of the day department

I am impressed with what you've done with TOTD. Due to your efforts in revitalizing the tips, you re-earned their position on the main help page, and strengthened their presence on the community portal. The tips are helping more people than ever.

TOTD is lucky to be under your care.

I noticed that we both have the tip posted on our talk page. It occurred to me that our monitoring may catch errors too late. That is, a faulty tip might go half the day before one of us spots it.

We have a tool for this, that I totally forgot about...

It's {{totd-tomorrow}}, which displays the tip one day early.

It might be a good idea to display this in addition to the current day's tip (which is good to continue monitoring, in case of vandalism).

As always, at your service, The Transhumanist 22:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Teahouse

Hi JoeHebda. I'm wondering if this might be better on the talk page. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

New discussions on Catholicism and Catholicity

Hi, I saw that some time ago you participated in discussions regarding Catholicism and Catholicity on the page Talk:Catholicism (term). Recently, some of those discussions have been reopened, and maybe you would be interested to take a look? Thanks. Sorabino (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Anti-popes

Hello Joe, I have some troubles with your recent additions on the articles on Anti-popes. You edited in the List of popes and the List of tombs of antipopes. To start with the first: this list does not contain those who are considered antipopes.; just the popes, making this list of questionable relevance to the article. On the second one: while I agree that the list of tombs is useful, I believe it is better to include it in the Antipope-navigation-box, which I did after I saw your edits. THus, I believe we'd better remove the links to the two links from the See-also-sections. What do you think? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Greetings Jeff5102, Thanks for your comments.

• List of popes further down in the list contains several of those antipopes so that one should stay in the SA section.
• List of tombs of antipopes, yes that one could be removed from SA section as it is now a duplicate of Navbox link which you added. That was a good idea.

Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm crying

Your chicken gallery photos were so funny I laughed until I cried. I needed a good laugh after editing medical articles. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Greetings Barbara (WVS) - Glad you enjoyed. We used to have chickens on our farm years ago, so I knew what to look for on WP Commons. They have quite the variety of pix. Hoping those animal rights activists are not too upset by that last photo! Cheers, — JoeHebda • (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Change of name, help

Hi, you can change the name of this article from Antonio Folgueras Sión to Luis Antonio Folgueras y Sión. Last is his correct name: Ficha personal. Thanks.--87.218.118.125 (talk) 07:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Greetings 87.218.118.125, On the top toolbar, at "More" is an option for "Move" to change an article name.

Don't forget to sign up for an account :) Then you can track your history, retain more privacy as a user (your IP is public information!) and access cool tools and other nifty things. You can create an account here!

Happy editing and reading. — JoeHebda • (talk) 10:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Request

Would you consider being one of my advisers related to my application to the MetaWiki for a grant proposal? I need library people like you to give me advice. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 13:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Greetings Barbara (WVS) - Thanks for asking, however I have zero grant-writing experience so I would not be able to help out with any advice. In 2014 I retired after 44 years in computer industry (IT/MIS/DP), with my last years as computer operations specialist (among many other job titles over the years). This experience has helped me allocate about 10 hours per week updating Wikipedia. Wondering if there is any Noticeboard where you might ask for help? Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh! I'm not asking for help writing the grant proposal. I just think that you are a nice wikipedian who knows about libraries. You could ask about things that I have not thought of. That's all. You could be my conscious. It is okay if you don't want to do this adviser thing. You could simply endorse the project if you would like. Part of the grant process is for me to seek support from others and so this is not really against the 'rules', plus I really do need a few advisers. I've left notice on many boards but have only asked two people to be my advisers. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 14:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Barbara (WVS) - There are two editors with a lot more Wikipedia experience that I sent a wikilink to this page & asked if they might help you out. Cheers! — JoeHebda • (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 18:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Barbara (WVS) - here is a response that might help.

Hello JoeHebda. I am sorry but I have no significant experience with grant writing and am not a librarian. Please take a look at "Category:Wikipedian librarians". Three very active librarian editors who may be able to offer a few words of advice are DGG, Diannaa and LadyofShalott. Good luck! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

If this does not pan out I would suggest asking at "the Teahouse" (WP:THQ) although they mainly answer questions from new editors. Or the "Reference desk" (WP:RD). Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Camille de Soyécourt

I see you rated this article, which I just translated from the French, as "start class". The French wiki has it rated as "A". Maybe they have looser standards, but I imagine that if a newbie had started the article they would be a bit disconcerted to see the "start class" rating, which means it does not meet the needs of even a casual reader. See WP:ARTASS: it would be helpful if you would give advice on the article's talk page (not here) on the improvements needed to get it up to C class. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Single source?

St. Jakobus, Rüdesheim relies not on a single source, but on the Literature: two books with details. Kindly check such things. The German Wikipedia from which I translated is organized differently, relying on books for most of the text, and inline citations only for single additional facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Greetings Gerda Arendt - While our English Wikipedia has different standards than the German WP, I do agree with your suggestion above. So I changed the "One source" to "Refimprove" and added a few CNs to the article. Thanks for your help. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Next time just give me a week instead ;) - I do it in steps, first translate, then look for refs, - when I find enough, go for DYK. This one is undecided so far. It's one of the efforts to improve Rüdesheim for appearing on the Main page tomorrow. Please check if you can help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Catholicism Assessment Requests

Can we add a section to Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Assessment for users to request assessments of quality of WikiProject Catholicism articles? This option is available in Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Assessment and Wikipedia:WikiProject Religious texts/Assessment. PluniaZ (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Greetings PluniaZ - interesting idea, worth discussing on the WP Cath talk page instead of here. Near top of this page, on right side I have a "to-do" list with these categories that might help with WP Catholicism article assessments.

1. Category:Unassessed Catholicism articles
2. Category:Unknown-importance Catholicism articles
3. Category:Stub-Class Catholicism articles

At one time the "Unassessed" had thousands of articles & it took about 18 months of work to get those cleared out. I do check the first two almost daily and try to do those assessments right away. The stub-class is really huge with over 10,000 articles. Just started those recently, still in the A's.

If there is an article you need/want assessed right away, my suggestion would be to set "class=" and "importance=" to blank on the WP Catholicism line so the article will appear in the "Unassessed" category. Hope this helps. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, JoeHebda. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

		The Happy Holiday Barnstar
		How about combining a Barnstar with a Christmas Card? That is why this message is appearing on your talk page. Simultaneously and at the same time, this barnstar is conferred upon you because during this past year you worked and contributed your time to improve the encyclopedia. You also have received far too little recognition for your contributions. In addition, this is a small attempt at spreading holiday cheer. I've appreciated all the things that you have done for me. The Best of Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ and Merry Christmas 21:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)