User talk:RL0919/Archive 2009

TOO MANY CAPITAL LETTERS

Please look at the corrections I did in these edits. Wikipedia:Manual of Style requires lower case here. The first letter of a section heading is capitalized. Other letters in headings are capitalized if there's a reason to capitalize them, but being an initial letter in a section heading is not such a reason. Those are to be set in lower case. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind for future edits. I haven't reviewed the MOS recently, and considering the length of it I doubt I'll ever have it all memorized, so such reminders are helpful. --RL0919 (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Compact citations

You might be interested in {{Harvnb}}; it's similar to the system you have been using, but a little cleaner I think. For an example of use, see The Bolshevik Myth. Regards,  Skomorokh  06:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. Don't think I want to tackle a re-do at the moment, but it's a good idea for the future. --RL0919 (talk) 06:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Anthem

Thanks for the changes. I definitely think they are for the better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandonk2009 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability vs. Reliability

Actually, Pelagius1 insisted that "there is no reason to treat PARC differently from the Brandens' works." TallNapoleon was correct to point out that there was a difference between the two works. The movie, if one were to read both the WP:FRINGE and WP:BK guidelines, also indicates that even fringe theories and historical interpretations (not that evidence suggests the Brandens' are remotely considered fringe by dint of the sources) would be more "notable" should this particular criterion be met. Lisa then adds "the movie has no bearing on anything" which is obviously incorrect. It does. "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture [emphasis added], or other art form, or event or political or religious movement." (see WP:BK) I agree that notability and reliability are different concepts on Wikipedia (unless we were to add Wikipedia's policy of WP:UNDUE into the mix with its emphasis on "prominence" and how much space should be allotted a particular book's thesis relative to another), but the rhetoric employed by Pelagius1 and Lisa is increasingly just that: rhetoric. Responding to them further is pointless, RL0919. I suspect that this is why most editors have stopped bothering to reply. Best regards, J Readings (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Objectivist Periodicals

Your suggestions for the periodicals sounds good to me. I'll let you go ahead and do what you are planning to do, since you know what you are doing. I'll go and revert the changes I made, you don't have to do the work. Brandonk2009 (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Branden Criticisms

As someone related to the author (his wife), I cannot mention PARC, but you have stated that you are one of those sympathetic with some its arguments. I can only ask you, as someone with whom we have no relationship whatever, to consider including mention yourself of some kind of qualification of the Brandens claims, where and how you think it proper, as they come up at Wikipedia. I quoted one from the Rand biography in the Discussion. It seems wrong to allow the most baseless or contradictory criticisms of Rand from the Branden biographies, or from "Benefits and Hazards," (or from Rothbard for that matter) to stand unqualified by any of the actual and on-going debate about these matters. Pelagius1 (talk) 13 June, 2009. —Preceding undated comment added 23:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC).

Missed the point completely

You removed the following with the remark that it was merely about the name of a boat. Indeed, it was the name of a ship but for a reason - it was to demonstrate the theory of laissez faire in action and governmental response to it. This is a well documented historical event and its simplicity seems to be the issue: it is a classic example of the theory of laissez faire put into action. You removed it. Perhaps it was not in the appropriate spot, but I do believe that such an example does belong in the article. The removed paragraph is as follows and I would like to see it reinserted in the article where you think it would be more appropriate:

Example

In 1965, Don Pierson of Eastland, Texas bought a vessel ("Olga Patricia") which he renamed Laissez Faire. On board this ship were two powerful broadcasting stations: Swinging Radio England and Britain Radio. Both broadcast commercial radio programs into the United Kingdom from an anchorage three and a half miles offshore in international waters. The British government called them pirate radio stations and introduced a law to declare them as criminal operations. The law became effective in 1967 and it also silenced Pierson's earlier creation of Wonderful Radio London which the BBC were told by the British government to use as a format to create a legally licensed version called BBC Radio One.

Reply: I appreciate your interest in improving the Laissez-faire article. To help involve others who may be able to assist, I've placed my thoughts on this example at Talk:Laissez-faire#Deleted example. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Missing Character on Character List

I just finished listening to Blackstone Audio's unabridged version of Atlas Shrugged (it was very enjoyable). I came to the Wiki page for the book to get some insight and then I was browsing the Character List mainly to get spellings of names because not reading the book I never saw the name in print.

I could not find a listing for Ken Dannegger(sp?)of Dannegger Coal. He is not listed in main section or in Minor characters.

This is the first time I have ever written anything in Wikipedia, so please forgive any errors or broken protocols. I just want to see the list be complete and I thought you would be the one to do it.

67.139.47.124 (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Daniel Mills

It doesn't have to be me that adds the information. It could be anyone — even you. But if you aren't comfortable making the edit yourself, I'll see if I can get to it in the next day or two. --RL0919 (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

User Ratel vandalizing? bad faith?

User Ratel is trying to archive an active discussion in Aktion T4. This User Ratel is involved in the discussion. 190.25.101.144 (talk) 03:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not involved with the editing of that page and I'm not an administrator, so I'm not sure why you are mentioning this on my talk page. I recommending taking your concern to the administrator notice board if you think something inappropriate is going on. --RL0919 (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok.

Official websites (just FYI)

About this, I proposed a section at WP:EL a little while ago that would unify all of the 'official website' ideas in one, somewhat more visible location, but it didn't really get much traction. It's not so pressing a need as to justify bringing it up in the middle of this other discussion, but I hope that eventually the page will have a single section that explains some of the less commonly known advice on this subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. I know I've read the WP:EL guidelines at least a dozen times, but I didn't notice that footnote until it was pointed out in the TfD discussion for the Twitter template. --RL0919 (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Not Selected

The six cities in the Template:Metropolitan cities of India are not arbitrarily selected for this template.They are Metro cities of India.Further, I agree with the fact that the template have to be deleted.--Sharadbob (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand GA review

Noloop (talk · contribs) has been unblocked to take part in their ArbComm case; I'm not sure what editing restrictions the user is under, but I would not be surprised if they were only allowed to edit the pages relating to the ArbComm case. I'd recommend raising the issue at WT:GAN, perhaps someone else could complete the review. Nev1 (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. That was my planned next step in case of no/negative response, but I figured the polite thing was to ask directly first. (I believe the block should have expired by now anyway since it was for one week.) If I don't hear anything in a day or so I'll try my luck at WT:GAN. --RL0919 (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. At the time, I didn't fully understand how the GA process worked, so I didn't realize that I was "taking" the review in the sense of pre-empting others. Please feel free to reset the process. Noloop (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

TFD

I have relisted some templates you voted on here. Due to the nature of the discussion, the relist was split into three different discussions, and hence, it was not possible to simply move your comments up to the new discussion. It would be great if you could voice your opinion again. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

To our newest Rollbacker

I have just granted you rollback rights because I believe you to be trustworthy, and because you have a history of reverting vandalism and have given in the past or are trusted in the future to give appropriate warnings. Please have a read over WP:ROLLBACK and remember that rollback is only for use against obvious vandalism. Please use it that way (it can be taken away by any admin at a moment's notice). You may want to consider adding {{Rollback}} and {{User rollback}} to your userpage. Any questions, please drop me a line. Best of luck and thanks for volunteering! upstateNYer 00:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Mistake?

Did you realize that this template creates a compass table ala {{Geographic Location}}? It has nothing to do with {{infobox settlement}}. It appears no one actually looked to see what the template did. I am now wondering how many people are voting with knee jerk reactions rather than actually inspecting the template being debated. I'm sure this is due to the massive number of "IS merger" proposals. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I admit I did take Andy's word for the function of the template. On most of them I do check, but this one seemed so blatantly over-specific just from the name that I didn't investigate it as closely. Plus there are a lot of the same types of templates being nominated, and his descriptions panned out for others, so after a while it is tempting to take shortcuts just because of the time involved in checking everything. But "once bitten, twice shy." I'll be more careful in the future. --RL0919 (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I know. I did the exact same thing and it wasn't until I started thinking about the work required to merge it that I noticed. I too will try to remember to never make assumptions. Thanks. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wrong section

Ack! Thanks. That's what happens when you have vision problems that thwarts good tracking. Appreciate it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Citations???

Hi,

Thank you, I guess, for your edits.

Questions for you, please:

1. Am I allowed to add future links?

2. Do I need more references than the one you posted?

If yes, please advise as to which items need to be referenced I cannot find talk pg. of person to posted citations needed; he had not responded to me prior to last weekend. Removed his post, as figured you had addressed the issue.

3. Congressional testimony cannot be included here?

Thank you very much, Jespah

Jespah (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume this is about the article on John Prendergast, since you are the major contributor there. Numbered replies below:

1. There's nothing that specifically stops you from adding more links, but you might want to read the rules at WP:External links carefully before you do. External links are generally supposed to be a small part of an article, not the majority of its content. If Prendergast has another article published in a major newspaper or on the CNN website, then you could add that to his bibliography and include a link. But the number of links in the External Links section is already more than what is normally expected, so you should think twice about adding anything there, unless you take something else out at the same time.
2. Yes, the article does need to have more references. For biographies of living people, it is desirable to have some sort of outside reference for any significant claim made in the article. For example, the article says he "was director of African Affairs at the National Security Council and Special Advisor at the Department of State" and that one of his books was "a New York Times bestseller and NAACP non-fiction book of the year". There should be support for all of these claims. You could cite a biographical summary about him from one of his own books or the website of an organization he works with, or news articles about his activities. This is a situation where more links would be fine, if they are in reference notes backing up specific claims in the article. If you aren't sure how to format the citation, just do the best you can and someone else can clean it up.
3. Congressional testimony can be included, but one of the guidelines for external links is not to be redundant. If you link to a website, such as the Enough Project's site, that already has copies of or links to the information in places where a reader could easily find it, then we do not need a link to that same information in the Wikipedia article. We trust that readers who are interested can click through the Enough Project website once we've linked to it. A lot of links were removed for precisely this reason.

I hope that answers you questions, and let me know if there is anything else I can do to help with the article. --RL0919 (talk) 00:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::::Thank you very much; I appreciate your help. Sorry to be so dense about this. Jespah (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, would great appreciate your pointing out to me each instance in article that needs a reference, if you have the time and interest. My understanding of what you have said is that references are needed for cited work with members of Congress, human rights organizations, think tanks, job as a youth counselor, coach, all tv appearances, articles written for mentioned news outlets, visiting professorships and honorary doctorates, association with dream for darfur and raise hope for congo.

tonight found a white house press release from clinton library stating John's position. I imagine that should suffice?

Many thanks.

Jespah (talk) 07:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

From the list you give above, I think you already have a good idea of what needs references. Basically, claims that he worked for such-and-such organization or received such-and-such award/honor/status should be supported with references. Once those references are supplied, we could look over the article to see if there's anything else that might need to be supported. But the article right now is fairly short, so if there are reference notes for the work history and honors, that should cover most of it.

If he appeared on a TV news show or wrote an article for a news outlet, normally that wouldn't require a separate reference note, because what you are talking about in those cases are items that are source material themselves. If someone challenges that information (saying, no he didn't appear on that show, etc.), then further proof might be needed.

A press release from the White House would work as a source for his position(s). As to the bio of Prendergast that you posted below, you could use that as a reference also, assuming that it comes from a reliable source. I'm going to remove the text of the bio from my talk page, because it doesn't really belong here, plus I don't know if it is copyrighted material or not. We don't need to copy the text of the sources into Wikipedia. We just need to tell readers where the information came from. So if the text is on a website (whitehouse.gov, enoughproject.org, cnn.com, etc.), then a link to it would be good enough as a start. Just go to the end of the sentence that says, "he did such and such", and add a reference note (like this: <ref>http://webpageaddresshere</ref>) with the specific address of the bio/press release/news article that you used. The page at WP:CITE gives details on the ideal information to include on a citation, but even just the minimal reference pointing people to an outside page that confirms what the Wikipedia article says would be a good start. If the source that confirms the information isn't online (books, magazine articles, etc.), then make sure you give enough information for someone to track down the source (title, author, when it was published, etc.). --RL0919 (talk) 13:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Richard, Just noticed your "lead". Thank you, but don't think that it represents John as well as he should be represented by saying that he has worked on a few projects re Sudan and Congo. He is a leading global voice on these issuses and has had over 20-25 years of experience on them. Also, trying, unsuccessfully thus far, to remove the quotes from Law and Order citation. Any suggestions? Thanks so much!

Jespah (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to change the lead, because I'm certainly no expert on the subject of Mr. Prendergast. But please remember that it should be a neutral description of the subject, not promotional. (For example, "leading global voice" is the sort of phrasing that should only go in an article if it is in a quote from an independent source such as a newspaper or magazine.) The idea of a lead is for it to be a brief summary about the subject before the table of contents, so it is OK if it repeats some points from the main body. My only goal is for there to be some sort of brief, reasonable lead. The way it was before, the article was half over before the table of contents! --RL0919 (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, finally removed quotation marks. Edited your statement somewhat. Jespah (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, pls. let me know if current lead is acceptable. Somewhere along the line, I noticed a wiki editor complaining about the # of links. What happened, I think, is that I had pasted an intern's revised bio into current wiki bio, which contained many,many links and, inadvertently, saved it. It is all entirely my fault. Mr. Prendergast has nothing to do with this bio, so please, Wiki editors, don't blame him.

Thank you! Jespah (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The word "grave" is a little bit POV (what is a crisis to some is overreaction to others), and "now" isn't necessary because the sentence was already in the present tense. So I cut those particular words. Otherwise it seems like a decent lead for a short article. (If the article grows significantly larger, the lead should grow also to be a proportional summary of the contents.) The density of blue links is a bit much. I think that's because there is too much listing of magazine names. It could probably be summarized a little without losing anything important. I'll see what I can do. --RL0919 (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your help. Don't recall where grave occurred, will ck. I receive Google Alerts for John and recently received one which took me to a Tweetmeme ?) site.

Google Alert:

John Prendergast Wikipedia the free encyclopedia John Prendergast ← Previous revision Revision as of 2152 24 September 2009 Line 1 httpbitlyUqpBY. quarleseb15. Report. More. Discovered 16 mins ago ...

When you click on his entry, you are taken directly to comparison edit of bio.

Don't understand why this exists??

Thanks again!

P.S. I originally posted that person's Tweetmeme entry, but wiki blocked me from saving pg. because of that.

Jespah (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia keeps a history of all the past revisions of the article, and anyone can link to an old revision if they know how. I did a search and was able to find the tweet you mention, but it doesn't include any explanation for why that link was sent. I can only assume whoever sent the tweet thought there was something interesting about that particular revision. --RL0919 (talk) 01:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Do you know how to remove those seemingly unnecessary quotation marks around certain citations, i.e., "Doctor of Public Service"? Thanks so much!

The phrases you are talking about are in the "title" field of the citation templates, so they are being treated as the titles of the web pages. Those should be in quotes according the the Wikipedia manual of style. But those aren't really the titles of those pages. Plus it gets a little complicated because there are different templates to use depending on whether the item is a press release, a news story, a generic web page, etc. I updated the citations with more details. The key is that they were in the article, so I had something to work with. That's the really important aspect of citations: having them there so other editors can confirm the material. The formatting isn't crucial. --RL0919 (talk) 03:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Richard,

Would this be acceptable as wiki bio:

John Prendergast is an American who has become well known for his informed activism and advocacy, particularly around genocide and massive human rights violations taking place in Africa. As the co-founder of the Enough Project, he is dedicated to developing a permanent constituency to prevent genocide and crimes against humanity. His work is premised upon the principle that we are each other's keepers. But, John is too well-schooled in the work of Washington to know that this argument won't make policy. So, he has invested in showing us, as Americans, our relationships to each other across national boundaries. Whether it's by engaging a well known person who has made this connection themselves (Don Cheadle to Darfur, Ryan Gosling to Uganda) and helping them to communicate that personal commitment and connection or by ceaselessly researching, writing and speaking himself, he has found ways to help Americans who will never travel to Darfur, the Democratic Republic of Congo, or Northern Uganda, to see these places through his eyes. Fortunately for us, John does not romanticize or sentimentalize Africa or the fragile places in which he works in order to draw awareness and attention. He respects the women, men and children in these countries and it shows. It is this profound respect for them and their fundamental rights to living in safety and security and with dignity in their native homes and villages which animates, indeed permeates, his work.

The question of are we our sister's keeper is one that John has addressed nearly daily over the past few months. In his effort to draw awareness to the fact that the Eastern border of the Democratic Republic of Congo has become the most dangerous place in the world for women and girls, he is making visible the direct connection among us as Americans, our use of technology (ipods, computers, cell phones) and "conflict minerals" like tin, tungsten, tantalum and gold that help power our electronics industry.

And, in situations like Darfur where our connection to the conflict is not as direct as in our use of technology products, John reminds us of our national commitment to the Genocide Convention, what Article II says, why it matters and what it would mean for us to honor that commitment.

Thank you!

Jespah (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I reformatted the indenting, so I hope I'm following correctly what you want to make part of the article. I would definitely say that as you give it here, this text would not be appropriate article text. It is simply too promotional about Prendergast, with words like "well-informed" and "Fortunately". However, if you mean that this is material you found elsewhere, and you want to use it as a source about Prendergast, then it could be cited as a source of opinion about him -- assuming that it is from an independent, third-party reliable source, such as a newspaper columnist or a political leader quoted in a news story. If it is from a source closely related to Prendergast himself, such as an organization he works with, then it would not be appropriate.

The key thing to remember is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Imagine how an article in, say, Encyclopedia Britannica might be written. It would not try to promote the subject's virtues ("He respects the women, men and children in these countries and it shows."), nor would it refer to him as "John" or talk about "our national commitment". (Whose nation? Wikipedia is multi-national.) The article simply shouldn't say things like this, as if they were the position of the encyclopedia. It needs to be neutral about the subject. On the other hand, if someone else says nice things about him, and it is someone appropriate to quote (such as the examples I mention above of a columnist or political leader), then the article could mention that, because that is a fact about the outside world (someone said X), rather than opinion of the article itself.

I hope that all makes sense to you. I'll be somewhat busy for the next few weeks, so my apologies in advance if my replies to any future questions are occasionally delayed. --RL0919 (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Matt Drudge

The para does not accuse him of being gay, but it is on topic, and does help people make up their own minds as to what's going on, wouldn't you agree? ► RATEL ◄ 01:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I don't agree. As a part of the section on "Gay allegations", it lacks relevance, because the story is about Seymour's sexuality, not Drudge's. All it really shows about Drudge is that he was friends with a gay guy. If it were in a completely different section, it would immediately be recognized as an insignificant anecdote that doesn't warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Where it is, it can be taken as innuendo, but that's exactly the sort of thing we shouldn't be putting in articles. --RL0919 (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

{{Reference necessary}}

Sorry I deleted the TfD tag! When I clicked on it from an article, it did not take me to a deletion discussion. It took me to the template. So I thought it had been coded incorrectly and was meant by someone editing the template to take editors encountering it in wikiarticles to the template documentation rather than to WP:CITE. Sorry about that. Thanks for putting it back in! — Spike (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's supposed to take you to the deletion discussion. There might be a bug in the Tfd-tiny template. --RL0919 (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Could the nominator or another person place one of those large TfD templates on the template page? Then others would know it’s up for deletion. I really like this template because it covers more ground than the more limited {{Fact}}/{{cn}} template. I think its issues could be resolved with a better design and better documentation. I’d gladly try and improve it, if it could get a reprieve. I’ll add my “vote” to the TfD discussion a little later, although I think it’ll be for naught. I think I see its death warrant coming down the pike … <sigh> — Spike (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, done. I put the larger notice inside a "noinclude" tag so it won't show up in the article pages. The original nominator had used the large-size tag, but when that's used with an inline template, it makes a mess of the article pages. That's why I replaced it with Tfd-tiny originally. Now we've got the best of both worlds, I hope. --RL0919 (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You Sir, are a genius! Thanks for placing the larger deletion template on the template page. Thanks also for the “noinclude” point. I see that sometimes coded into templates and I am not sure of its use. Your comment sheds some light on it for me. How’d you get to be so smart? :) — Spike (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I added to the TfD for this template here. I wish, however, that everywhere this template is currently used in Wikipedia was not accompanied by a mini-TfD link to the deletion debate! I believe that it has the effect of attracting people who never usually weigh in on these debates and that a lot of the delete votes are consequently coming from people who just do not like being asked to provide verifiable references/citations. Anyway, I added my vote to KEEP, but I am always outnumbered by the deletionists in these debates. <sigh> — Spike (talk) 04:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Quotes in reference template

Hi Richard,

Wondering if I can remove unnecessary quotation marks in references?

Also, the Vanity Fair profile of John is no longer online. OK to cite Enough's profile of John, which simply states that he was profiled in VF?

Thank you!

Jespah (talk) 05:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Quotation marks are appropriate in some cases, not "unnecessary". A reference should give the title of the source material. If that is the title of a web page or news article, then it is supposed to be in quote marks. If it is the title of a book, it should be in italics. These are standard convention for the titles of sources, and we should try to stick to them even if it occasionally looks a little funny. If there's a specific case where you think something is showing up in quotes that should not, let me know exactly what and I'll try to take a look.

Regarding the Vanity Fair profile, yes, it is fine to use the other profile as a source. Also, source material does not have to be online. If something appears in a print magazine, newspaper or book, it is perfectly fine to use that, as long as you give a reference note with the details (title of the article, name of the magazine, issue date, etc.) so that other editors could find the original if they wanted to. --RL0919 (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Latest stable software release/rxIRC TfD

Thanks for the notification. [1] I already had the template on my own watchlist but I'm glad someone took the time to post a notification. Re your qustion here [2] these templates are transcluded from {{Infobox software}}, {{Infobox OS}}, and many other infoboxes. They are also commonly used in the Release history and similar sections/tables of Comparison articles like these are used in Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients#Release history. See Category:Software comparisons for lots more examples. The TfD nom by User:Miami33139 was done strictly for harassment purposes and is without merit. They know I've been working on this article have have recently begun harassing me. See this discussion on AN/I for the details. --Tothwolf (talk) 09:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up. I strongly recommend that you make any relevant information known at the TfD discussion page so that other editors participating in that discussion will see your remarks. --RL0919 (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Where these templates become very important are the larger and more complex Comparison articles. These templates allow the version information to be easily updated without having to edit the larger article, which in many cases can exceed 50 to 100KB or more. See Comparison of web browsers and Comparison of e-mail clients for examples. These subtemplates are also very helpful in keeping the minor edits to these larger articles to a minimum. For an example directly related to Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients see the edit history [3] of Template:Latest stable software release/ClicksAndWhistles. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

I noticed you are one of hte regulars at wp:tfd. Would you care to comment on my ideas in Wikipedia_talk:Templates_for_deletion#Category?

Re: Max Naether

I noted that you removed a reference to a blacklisted site. I scanned the revision history, and couldn't pinpoint the change. I have three questions.

First, which is the blacklisted site?

Second, what is the purpose of the blacklist?

Third, where can I find the blacklist, so that I can avoid future errors?

Georgejdorner (talk) 05:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The blacklist is discussed at WP:BLACKLIST, and the actual list is at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. The site in question is traveljournals.net, which was added recently after a discussion indicated that it is a scraper site that takes basic geographical information from other sources and surrounds it with advertising. The blacklist only prevents new additions, so a few folks (including me) were going through the old links to clean them out. This process turned up a few cases where something was linked other than scraped information (the site also has user-contributed blogs), so there a suggestion has been made that perhaps it does not belong on the blacklist. If you have an opinion one way or another on that, you can contribute to the discussion at WP:ELN#traveljournals.net. --RL0919 (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hickman

I noticed the changes you made to William Edward Hickman and I'm concerned that, in your attempt to make the article neutral, you've made it less than neutral. If you read this, it does look like other quotes from Rand show clear admiration for Hickman. How do you suggest we fix the article so that it's neutral again? Phil Spectre (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to base the text on reliable sources, a status for which website essays and blog posts don't generally qualify. Neither Burns nor Sciabarra describes Rand as admiring Hickman. Burns characterizes Rand as "sympathetic rather than horrified." Sciabarra doesn't characterize her feelings towards him at all. I'm not aware of a reliable source that characterizes her view of him as one of admiration. --RL0919 (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

What led me to Hickman's bio was a link added without comment to Talk:Ayn Rand, pointing to The Daily Kos. Now, whatever we might think of Kos' political views, doesn't he count as a WP:RS? Phil Spectre (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Burns and Sciabarra are academics publishing under peer review, so I would take their perspective over any political blog. But I don't see anything wrong with quoting Rand a bit more extensively as you did in your recent edit. (Provided, of course, that we remember that this is an article about Hickman, not Rand. Don't want to go overboard talking about her instead of him.) --RL0919 (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I added Danny Renahan's name, and left it at that. I think I'm done here for now. Phil Spectre (talk) 05:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for what you're doing on the John Todd article

Thanks for your awesome google book searching and for being willing to improve an article instead of just deleting without improving. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Glad I could help. That he is an appropriate subject for an article seems clear to me, even though I never heard of him before I followed a "What links here" from Ayn Rand. I think the key is to make sure the article is firmly sourced from books, magazines and newspapers, and eliminate the citations of personal and advocacy group websites. (The ones to Chick.com should be OK since they are documenting his own publications.) --RL0919 (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

About this

I am sorry. I am using WP:TW.--JL 09 _^q?c 13:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I use Twinkle also, and I've had the same thing happen before. However, I think there is another issue: Now that I've traced what this template is, I realized that it is a user box. Which means that it is supposed to be listed at WP:MFD instead of WP:TFD. All userboxes go to MFD regardless of what namespace they are created in. (Another limitation of Twinkle is that it doesn't recognize that, so it defaults to putting template-space userboxes into TFD. --RL0919 (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

tfd

If your not going to reply at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_18#Template:Substantial_sources then I will remove the link to WP:N on the template which would seem to invalidate your reason for deletion.--Otterathome (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I have provided a reply at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 October 18#Template:Substantial sources. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied.--Otterathome (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ucfirst

Let's try and work this out.

Debresser (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied at the template talk page. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Well yeah maybe you are right about it. But I know Fut. Perf. good and I know that his idea to delete the template will became true for sorry :S :(. I made with a lot of love to my country. I know that it will be deleted so for that i feel stupid. I wasted a time on that template and now everything will fall in water actually. :S :S :S... Do u understand me??? So I don't know what to do right now... An advice :/ ??? Greetings 1111tomica (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion closed as "keep". I hope that reduces your frustration a bit. :-) --RL0919 (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Request to, at your convenience, please review John Prendergast bio, as changes made.

Hi,

I hope you are doing well.

I want to be sure that I am in compliance with Wikipedia's rules.

When you have time, wonder if you would please take a look at John's profile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jespah (talk • contribs) 21:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, Nell

Jespah (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Nell. I'll try to take a look at it over the weekend. --RL0919 (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at it and didn't see any obvious problems except for a few wikilinks that weren't formatted correctly. I fixed those. --RL0919 (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Richard! Thank you so much! Greatly appreciate your time and help, Nell

69.177.33.47 (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Adoption navbox

I saw you are willing to work on the adoption navbox. It would be nice if you can help with that by fixing it, placing it on all the pages within, and finding more pages to go within.

I just recently learned how to make a navbox properly. I am busy most of the time, and presently, when I have time to go online, I would like to work on creating more articles on Babyface songs, now that I discovered most of them have not been created yet or are stubs. Shaliya waya (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to start working on it this weekend. Once the view/edit links are fixed, it should be usable, and it can be expanded over time with links to additional relevant articles. --RL0919 (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand subpage

Done. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

RFA

I have been impressed by your contributions to Wikipedia; in particular your contributions at WP:TFD. Do you have any interest in becoming an administrator? I would be happy to nominate you if you are interested. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that I could be helpful with the mop, but an RFA would be poorly timed right now due to real-world commitments. If your nomination offer is still open after the new year, I might take you up on it then. Thanks for the vote of confidence regardless. --RL0919 (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Waiting until after the new year is a great idea. Some folks might question the gap in your editing, and waiting another couple months will make this less of an issue. By the way, if you spot any other non-admins who you think would do a good job, let me know. In my opinion, we really need more admins to keep the project healthy. Best regards. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

TFD closures

I have an explanation. I'm a boob. lol I wish I had a better explanation. I'll reverse what I did. I...no clue what I was thinking. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 23:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I undid all of the mistakes I made. I think. Might've missed one or two. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 23:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Jackson

Thanks for the reminder. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Please suggest replacement template

Hi. You recently participated in a template deletion discussion [4] which resulted in the deletion of a template, Template:OtherusesSubtopicAlias, used at the top of the article Positive airway pressure. The deletion discussion did not mention which template should be used as a replacement. I can't even see what the text was that was formerly at the top of the article as created by the template. Could you please suggest an alternate template to use at the top of this article? (I'm also posting this request to the talk pages of others involved in the deletion discussion.) Robert K S (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, according to the Google cache, it used to read, "This article includes a subtopic, Continuous pressure devices, which is often known as CPAP. For other uses of this term, see CPAP." Robert K S (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Since there has already been discussion on your own talk page in reply to your inquiries, I've placed my thoughts there. --RL0919 (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

International Institute of Psychosomatic Medicine

Hello, RL0919. You have new messages at Wifione's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cast/Crew in navigation box

Any comments you could add here would be greatly appreciated. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 23:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You asked for it! :) My long-winded comments have been posted. --RL0919 (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Jumped the gun

I know you said you wanted to wait until the New Year, but I had some spare time, so I started an RfA page for you. Of course, we shouldn't transclude it until you think you have a free week when you can answer questions. Based on my initial analysis of your contributions, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't pass. Of course, if you aren't interested at all, I can delete the nom that I started. By the way, thanks for the WP:TROUT earlier today, it was much appreciated. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

So you want me to get a mop for Christmas, eh? We might as well just go ahead now. It should be slow for me next week, although I may get hit with more than a trout if the spouse realizes I'm avoiding my in-laws in order to spend even more time on Wikipedia. Give me an hour or so before transcluding it. I'll put in my acceptance and let you know that I'm ready to go. --RL0919 (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, RL0919. You have new messages at Btilm's talk page.
Message added 20:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Btilm 20:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

A Nobody^{My talk} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:Help page

Thank you for your write. I also noticed that there is a Help page for Japanese, see: Help:Japanese. --서공·Tây Cống·セイコゥ^? ★委^ủy班^ban復^phục活^hoạt漢^hán喃^nôm越^việt南^nam★ 05:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You are now an administrator

Well done, and here's your t-shirt. :) Amalthea 12:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WJBscribe (talk) 01:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful admin candidacy, and happy holidays! — æk^Talk 01:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm so glad to see it was a success. I'm sure you will do well with the new tools. All the best! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratz! --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

1215 in Ireland

You just declined a speedy on 1215 in Ireland. I agree with your decision. The tagger, IBen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), seems to be doing a lot of inappropriate tagging, but this may be a matter of inexperience rather than vandalism. Please consider leaving him a note. I hope that a block won't be necessary. - Eastmain (talk) 05:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

IBen's CSD tagging may be a bit over-enthusiastic, but I see no evidence of disruptive intent or anything that would warrant even a warning, much less a block. Hopefully as he gets more feedback, he will better understand when to apply CSD tags and when to use other approaches. --RL0919 (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, RL0919. You have new messages at IBen's talk page.
Message added 05:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

iBen^discuss 05:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, RL0919. You have new messages at IBen's talk page.
Message added 06:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

iBen^discuss 06:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

congrats!

congrats on adminship please handle the mop with care! 74.97.16.197 (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)