User talk:Jreferee/Archive 7

I find it pretty useful and rarely have any problems. Twinkle is excellent. Feel free to copy it over, and I will gladly explain about any you aren't sure of. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 21:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I copied it. I look forward to figuring it all out. I'll post on your talk page if I have questions. -- Jreferee 23:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated this with more WPBiography action. Give it a try (refresh your page cache if necessary). I am not going to create a bunch of strings, which was one of your suggestions, but the new version should come closer to what you're requesting. –Outriggr § 05:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your assessment script no longer appears on an article page and I get the message "Done, but with errors" as the page is loaded. The same occurs even after I hit F5. -- Jreferee 16:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry to hear. I'm confused as it seems to be working for other people. Are you using Internet Explorer 6? –Outriggr § 19:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using Internet Explorer 7. I also just turned on " Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" in my preferences, which was working and now is not. I also just copied User_talk:Jreferee#My_monobook RHB's monobook into my own monobook. Would you mind looking over my User:Jreferee/monobook.js to see if its coded correctly? Thanks. -- Jreferee 19:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted my monobook.js and your script now works. Fantastic improvements! -- Jreferee 00:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out that my vote at the top of section break 2 was unclear. I refactored it further to make sure the keep vote I had cast didn't look unsigned. Jokestress 18:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? was updated. On 8 March, 2007, a fact from the article Jim Fields, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thank you for the nomination. — ERcheck (talk) 05:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback on this article Jreferee. I have now adjusted according to your "biography tips" link and would very much appreciate if you can give me any futher assessment or thoughts please? --VS ^talk 22:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VirtualSteve. You may want to revise the footnotes. I did the first two. Check out the categories used in the articles to which are dynamic linked in the Valerio Ricetti. The talk page for these articles may have banners that you can use on your article and the article page for these articles may have Categories that you may use in the Valerio Ricetti article. -- Jreferee 22:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Cool. I have many edits but this is my first bio. Appreciate your suggestions again. Cheers!--VS ^talk 22:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a part of User:Qxz/Ads in order to help improve the assessment drive. Please spread the word!

Cheers! Real96 04:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not try to push the use of my work in such an inappropriate context. I would be very much against using the images anywhere outside of userspace, and certainly not above articles. The negative responses your suggestion has recieved will likely reflect badly on me, despite being outside of my control. Thanks – Qxz 11:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you received negative responses. My idea was not ready to be formulated into a suggestion since I do not believe that it had been discussed by those responsible for the fund raising ad. Also, without some initial discussion, it had not even risen to the level of a good idea that should be pursued further. Although I originated the idea for investigation, I did not originate any suggestion. Here is how things came about. Real96 posted your ad on my talk page. I already was aware of the use of ads made during the fund raiser and wrote the Virgin Unite article. I put these items together and came up with the noted idea. I thought Real96 was involved in the User:Qxz/Ads ad banner in some way so I made a post on Real96s board. The next I heard about the matter was when I received the above post from you. Prompted by your post, I just looked at Real96's talk page. Apparently, Real96 then posted something that brought the responses mentioned (though events largely outside of my control). My plan was that after Real96 and I figured out whether this ad technologically could be posted like the fund raiser ad, we would have approached you next to see whether you thought it was a good idea. If so, then I would have brought in a few more select people to the discussion to see whether we could some up with a consensus on the idea, work out some of the issues, and determine the best way to go about getting a larger consensus. I wasn't aware that Real96 had skipped all these necessary steps and presented the idea to the community at large. I just looked at your contributions and see the extensive damage control that you have engaged in. I am truly sorry for all of this and if there is anyway I can help repair things, please let me know. I truly regret the approach I took to investigate this idea. Again, I'm sorry. -- Jreferee 16:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. It wasn't entirely your fault.

A substantial proportiion of the Wikipedia community is opposed to advertising on article pages no matter what, and another substantial proportion would accept it only as a last resort to raise funds if all other sources of funding had been exhausted. Since this internal promotion doesn't bring in any money, neither of these groups would find it acceptable. There are also many people that simply find ads annoying.

The main problem for me with making any kind of proposal to use them outside userspace is that it gives the impression I created them with that in mind. This was not the case at all – I initially threw together a couple of animations and stuck them at the top of my talk page, and that was it. I too am opposed to paid, external advertising in any form on Wikipedia, and having a couple of flashy animations on my talk page was just a light-hearted idea that I thought might brighten the page up a bit. Since then of course, they've been noticed, it's in use on several userpages and I'm getting requests for new ads daily. So it's gone beyond the original half-hour bit of creativity and I've had to spend several hours setting up information pages and templates, responding to requests and dealing with users who fail to understand that the ads are like WikiProject userboxes – they brighten up userpages and draw attention to projects and collaborations, but trying to use them anywhere outside of user-space would be inappropriate. Thanks – Qxz 16:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive212#User_Nowonline_and_Original_research

"Matter does not need administrator intervention and has otherwise been resolved." - if you think the edits by User:Wjhonson resolved the issue, I don't believe they did, fully. Simply removing "Richard B. Autry" as a reference hasn't removed the uncited information from the articles, and there are at least 9 articles remaining with the same or similar problems - check the full text search: [1]. Now, I'm happy to simply remove "Richard B. Autry" as a reference from the remaining articles, so long as that wouldn't be construed as a vendetta against Nowonline. I'd even have a go at removing the uncited info, but I don't want to come across as heavy-handed. Also, although perhaps not particularly germane, I don't think Nowonline has acknowledged the problem. I don't want to come across as too het-up about this - if you think I should just drop it and let it lie, please say so, and I'll wander off and do something else. I'll watch this page for your response. Thanks. WLD^talk|edits 21:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although Wjhonson's actions may not have resolved the issue, Wjhonson's actions resolved the administrator noticeboard's involvement in the matter. The administrator noticeboard pages are not the place to bring disputes over content or reports of abusive behaviour. -- Jreferee 04:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for recognizing my complaint re: this user's cyberstalking activities as noted at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive212#User:SkipSmith

From this point forward, if it would be appropriate, rather than respond to his harrassment, I will simply bring it to your attention here. There has already been a completely frivolous counter complaint filed at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive213#User_66.93.144.171

in which he digs into my posting history.

Basically, if this user leaves me alone, there will be no problem. If he continues to harrass me, as he has at many other sites, then I hope action will be taken. - 66.93.144.171 05:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another frivolous complaint was left on the Administrator's noticeboard here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_Attacks_by_66.93.144.171

And user continues to leave harrassing messages on my talk page. - 66.93.144.171 18:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I made one of the comments on the deletion page above your own. I'm pretty much a strong keep for all WA games, because of all the reasons laid out in previous AfDs, but I'm not against the deletion of archives and lesser-used variants. I think if the games were a little more streamlined then they wouldn't get as much of the attention from deletion-happy members. As far as I can see it, the reason why games are archived rather than just replaced are so that people who had a hand in playing them can see how they panned out; if this is the case then once they've been in the archive for a certain length of time I think they should be deleted. If you like I could raise something on the WA talk page and see what the consensus among the regular players would be. Phileas 21:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus among the regular players to remove old game content is probably the best way to go. Also, for each archive that should be kept, there should be an explanation at the top of the achieve as to why it should be kept so that if the page comes up for deletion, then those voting will have more information about what is going on. Each game archive and variant should have a clear statement at the top as to (i) how the game pertins to writing the Wikipedia encyclopedia and (ii) how it is directed only towards people who are active participants in the Wikipedia project. They also should (iii) cite WP:UP#Games as a basis for being permitted on Wikipedia. -- Jreferee 21:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are good ideas. I've started a discussion on the WA talk page and I'll direct all the most prolific players to it. Thanks! Phileas 21:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the noob question, but how do you go about your character counting for DYK noms? Do you have a handy tool for the purpose? Thanks for any info. Planetneutral ^talk 00:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I copy the relevent text and paste it into Microsoft word. I then use the word count feature under the Tools pull-down menu. -- Jreferee 14:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid that would be the answer. Seems like someone could develop something simple within Mediawiki to get character counts quickly. Oh well, appreciate the response. Planetneutral ^talk 16:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you change my assessment of the article Linnzi Zaorski from B to Start? --Mus Musculus 05:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article has a meaningful amount of good content, it still seems weak in areas and most material for a complete article still may need to be added. For example, it seems weak on back story and a reader genuinely interested in the topic may be likely to seek additional information elsewhere. The main information of the article has 1,806 characters, which is slightly above a stub. I assessed the article as start from the article page using script. I was not actually aware that I was changing a WPBiography assessment at the time I made the assessment. Generally, people do not assess their own articles. Please note, start is not a negative grade since are no negative grades in Wikipedia. Not that this went into the assessment, but more may need to be done for the licensing of the image. Please review the Requesting copyright permission - When permission is confirmed. -- Jreferee 15:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I don't disagree with any of your comments - my primary concerns are that you are using a script without fully understanding what it does (i.e. overwriting existing assessments) and that you are copying generic "advice" to the article talk page without explaining your assessment. --Mus Musculus 15:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The script does overwrite incorrect assessments and if there were an explanation of the article's B rating and/or the strengths and weaknesses of the article on the talk page, I would have reviewed that explained assessment at the time of my Start assessment. Usually, the WPBiography banner's link to the quality scale is enough for most editors to understand why an article has been assessed as Stub or Start. In addition, I usually provide a link to the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article since it provides advise from WikiProject Biography that the quality scale does not. -- Jreferee 16:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you insinuating that he and I are the same person? I guess your "one person with two identities" thing could make some sense, but if you look at my contributions, I actually have edited (although not as much as some). Most of my edits have been helpful, integrating trivia sections, some good work with several band and NBA basketball player articles. I didn't know there was a user or anything else which apparently made his situation more serious; I was just trying to be helpful to what I felt was a very, very misguided newcomer. --Tractorkingsfan 21:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, does this person exist in reality? I don't think he was trying to make a person sound like so. Not the greatest thing to do, but I don't think as malicious as you say. I noticed you posted in User talk:WAS 4.250 saying I had been "mentioned", neglecting to note that that mention was in fact made by you in regard to a bizarre and, to say the least, unproven accusation. What happened between myself and WAS in the thread you pointed to is sad, but that doesn't mean I'm guilty of every Wikipedia crime there is. --Tractorkingsfan 00:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's very nice of you, thank you. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you closed the Template:British Shipbuilders evolution tfd per WP:SNOW. That's fine, and I've closed a couple afds even though I am not an administrator. Note, however, that as a non-admin, you should probably have noted that you are a non-admin. WP:ADMIN specifically says that "Any user can behave in a way befitting an administrator (provided they do not falsely claim to be one), even if they have not been given the extra administrative functions." Since administrators generally close xfds, it seems to, whether intentionally or not, be a false claim to close an xfd without disclosing your non-admin status. I added a short note which I think is appropriate given the case. Feel free to remove it if you wish to add a statement yourself. I think, however, that some disclosure should be apparent. --Iamunknown 22:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might be unaware of this, but editors are not permitted to alter closed discussions, such as by adding further comments. Also, there is no requirement that editors in good-standing disclose a non-admin status when closing an XfD. And, the term "falsely claim" means a positive assertion of admin status, which I did not make. I would appreciate your reconsideration of altering the closed discussion. Thanks. -- Jreferee 23:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, where in policy does it say that editors are not permitted to alter closed discussions? --Iamunknown 23:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of saying "editors are not permitted to alter closed discussions," the closed debate states (i) "Please do not modify the archived debate" and (ii) "No further edits should be made to this page" and goes on to explain that (iii) "subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page." If you have not already reconsidered making edits to modify the archived debate, I would appreciate your doing so. If you have already considered the matter, then thank you for your consideration. -- Jreferee 23:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen those statement plenty of times; I interpret them as a guideline which, per WP:POLICY, is "actionable (i.e. ... recommends against, an action to be taken by editors)" but is "not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." I feel that this is one occasional exception. You are correct that the term "falsely claim" means a positive assertion of administrator status; acting in the capacity of an administrator, however, is also a weak assertion of administrator status. I apologize if my original statement sounded like an accusation against you; I did not intend to it to be nor do I now intend to it to be. I think, however, that a disclaimer note is appropriate to clear any possible confusion that users may encounter when realizing that a non-administrator closing an xfd discussion. I have considered your request and would ask you to consider adding an appropriate note in the future. --Iamunknown 23:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is an idea worth proposing that it be added to existing process. I added a discussion thread here. -- Jreferee 06:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I will add that we should consider whether or not "Non-administrators may not 'speedy-close' deletion discussions" applies to WP:SNOW closes -- the few (I think two) xfd closes I have done were snowy closes; I want to make sure I am doing nothing contrary to policy / process. --Iamunknown 06:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you and the bio assessment project for the "Bright Idea" award. There was some synchronicity in your project being underway and my notion to get started on this script. I'll be continuing to add my and others' ideas to it. (I don't know if you've noticed the smarter "listas" determination yet.) –Outriggr § 07:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your support during my recent RfA. I was successful, and I hope to prove a good admin. Shimeru 16:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? was updated. On 18 March, 2007, a fact from the article Shenxiu, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat}

There was an incomplete list of fonts on this page on March 16th. I completed the list and it vanished. I'm been searching for hours for some kind of explanation. Do you know what happened to it? If there a problem with completing an incomplete list? The data I used was accurate. I don't understand why the page disappeared and was replaced with a redirect. -- Ray larabie 03:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In short, living person Ray Larabie cannot be a Wikipedia source for a List of Ray Larabie's fonts since Ray Larabie is not a source that is independent from the content of the list. Here is how the redirect came about. The incomplete list of fonts on the Ray Larabie biography was moved[2] to List of Ray Larabie fonts because such a long list is not appropriate for a Wikipedia biography on Ray Larabie. Then, most of the content of List of Ray Larabie fonts was deleted from Wikipedia as a result of the Articles for Deletion discussion located here. List of Ray Larabie fonts was then made into a redirect as a result of that same Articles for Deletion discussion. Since the notable parts of the list was merged into the Ray Larabie article as a result of the Articles for Deletion debate and the remainder of that list was deleted as a result of that debate, you cannot recreate the deleted material to complete an incomplete list. Even though the list may have been accurate, there are other requirements that the list did not meet. Lists on Wikipedia require an unambiguous statement of membership criteria based on definitions made by appropriate sources. You may want to read Wikipedia:List guideline and appropriate sources to get a better idea of what may be included in a Wikipedia list. -- Jreferee 05:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]