User talk:Arms & Hearts/Archive 1

Archives

Door Wide Open

Just a note to say thanks for your help. It looks a lot better now. I realized my error in naming the book after I created the entry.Kerojack, Argenta (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Page

Why did you remove my image? I updated the Numbers along with the current predictions, and used the map to show that the democrats would lose six votes from 2008's election, if the results were to go the same way, backing up a claim on the page.

Making predictions for an election over a year before there are even going to be any candidates is clearly a massive violation of WP:Crystal. The map as it was before (and is now) is better quality, and doesn't make any uninformed predictions based on the completely unprecedented idea of the results of one election being exactly the same as those of the election which preceded it. — Hysteria18 • Talk • Contributions 12:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The map as it stands now does not match the information on the page.

I didn't realise that was the case. I'm personally uncertain as to what source we're using for these sections, but of course consistency between the map and the figures given in the article is a necessity. Feel free to edit the numbers on the map; my only problem is with the colouring of the states, which I've explained above. — Hysteria18 • Talk • Contributions 18:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Page

I like your idea. Thanks. And, as a lesser note, how do you get those template thingies on your user page? Like the one that says "this user is a libertarian socialist." FallenMorgan (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The boxes on my page are known as Userboxes and you can find them at the subpages listed here. From those pages, you just need to find the boxes you want, then copy and paste the code to your userpage. Hysteria18 (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do I organize them into a table sort of thing, now? And also, thank you for treating the third parties as real parties. Most would outright delete the section for a third party, rather than edit grammar and things like that. :) FallenMorgan (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I were you, I'd just copy the code straight from my page, if you want it to look roughly like mine, then change the boxes to the ones you want, and change the colours and other parameters as you want. Alternatively, you could use the Userboxtop and Userboxbottom templates as outlined on the Userboxtop page to put them in a sort of vertical table, or the gallery template to have them more as a break from the rest of the text, rather than alongside it. — Hysteria18 • Talk • Contributions 17:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Third Party

If you read the talk page of the 2012 Presidential election, you'll see that it was agreed upon to have them together in one section. Rockyobody (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe then we should have all the candidates together in one section. FallenMorgan (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid to say I still have no idea what you're talking about. I've read the talk page the whole way through twice now, and I'm still unable to find the consensus that you refer to here and in one of your edit summaries. Do you think you could provide a link? Thanks. — Hysteria18 • Talk • Contributions 16:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We Did It, Kid

Judging by what Rockyobody said in his tiny edit summary, it looks like we won the edit war! FallenMorgan (talk) 08:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Arms & Hearts! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Flewis^(talk) 01:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

S

The rule is that if the name of someone, a state, or whatever ends with an S, you don't add an apostrophe S at the end. So for example, let's say there was a guy named Carlos and a guy named Arnold who both lost their hats; if you were to ask where their hats were, you'd say/type "Where did Arnold's hat go?" That one is with an apostrophe S at the end, but if you were to ask where the hat that belongs to Carlos went, you'd say/type "Where did Carlos' hat go?", NOT Where did Carlos's hat go? - Eugene Krabs (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've caught me right as I'm going to bed, unfortunately, but I'll just say that if you're adamant that this should be the case, you've got a lot more moving to do. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 22:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you literally want me to move them, or are you saying that so I won't? XD - Eugene Krabs (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly the latter. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 15:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

Hey Hysteria18, I appreciate all the good cleanup work you've done on Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama, which will certainly need it if it's going to cover several years, but is there any reason why you changed the ref dates to the UK system? This is clearly an American related article, and the dates within the timeline itself are done in that fashion. Thanks - Joshdboz (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I wasn't really thinking in terms of the national connotations of the date formats, and don't really know that much about them; my only concerns are consistency and the use of a full date (i.e. 27 January 2009 or January 27, 2009) over a shortened one (i.e. 27/01/09, 01/27/09). So feel free to change them back to the U.S. format, if you haven't already. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions)

Thanks for searching out a better more reliable source for Feb6...at first glance I thought it was CNN. New glasses on order.--Buster7 (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continued great edits at Timeline. Clean and precise. Kudos...--Buster7 (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re;13390, agreed as to minor status.--Buster7 (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of internet Phomamana in the UK

i thought it would be good to have this page, and you could also make one for every country.

Remember you can't spell aircraft without RAF (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third party presidential primaries, 2012

I've thrawled through the article histories and found that the main article wasn't actually the first to write that information. I suspect the material was merged without proper attribution or redirecting. Please read my comment on the AFD and consider changing your comment. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at 2012 presidential election article

I invite you to participate in the discussion about the "front runner" section here. Tim meh ! 01:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

Hey, I just wanted to thank you for the image/videos on Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama - it's actually evolving into one of the more attractive timelines on en.wiki, which is tough for any list. Nice work! Joshdboz (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Arms & Hearts. You have new messages at Talk:John_Wemmick.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Computerwiz908 | Talk 15:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Essays as arguments

Hi there. I noticed you used an essay I wrote as a reason to reinstate a speedy tag I declined. I'd suggest you do not try this again because I did not decline it on grounds of not meeting A7; rather an admin can decide to decline an A7 (and other taggings) within policy even if they meet the criteria. If that happens, you should not reinstate it, else someone might see it as trying to admin shop. Regards So Why 13:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Senate pages

Thanks for helping with the Senate lists. We should probably coordinate because I was practically done with Idaho in one of my sandboxes when you finished. I'm currently working on Kentucky, so I should probably do that one. The ones that still need to be done are listed at User:Rrius. The ones that are not listed are already well-developed lists. I figured you could do Montana, North Dakota, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.

For the sake of consistency, I want to tell you the guidelines I use. I am not in any way saying this is what you have to do, but I do think it would be helpful to keep things basically the same. Unless your source (CongBio, I presume) says the person resigned on March 3, Wikipedia uses March 4. There is ample evidence that in practice terms ended at noon on March 4, rather than March 3, including a resolution to that effect in the mid-1800s. I would also suggest leaving out serving as mayor and other minor offices for all states. I generally use the following:

President and Vice President
Speaker of the House or President pro tempore of the Senate
Cabinet positions
Supreme Court Justice (with Chiefs noted as such)
U.S. Court of Appeals Judges
Ambassador (often called Minster, such as "Minister to Mexico")
Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, Treasurer, etc. of a state
Speaker of the House or President or President pro tempore of the Senate (as the case may be) of a state
Anything truly unusual, such as being a House impeachment manager for the Johnson or Clinton impeachments or being a commissioner to a World's Fair.

In ordering them, I tend to put the most the most prestigious on top and all federal offices above all federal offices.

Date ranges should be separated by an en dash rather than a hyphen. You can create en dashes by typing "–", clicking the smaller dash in the box below the edit summary box, or typing ALT-0150 on a PC or Option-hypen on a Mac.

I do have a question for you about the date ranges. Every time I look back at a table I can't help but think it would look much better without the dates for the other offices held, and that the dates aren't actually all that helpful. If you concur, let me know, and I'll go back and remove dates from the older ones.

Anyway, thanks again. -Rrius (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks, nice to meet you. Sorry about the Idaho thing, I knew from your userpage that you were working on them but didn't think to check your sandboxes to avoid problems like that. I'll gladly do the ones you've suggested, and use the offices you've listed; both the Kansas and Idaho lists have looked better following your contributions, so I'm happy to follow your suggestions. The only thing I'm uncertain about is mayors; surely if the city is a major one (e.g. over 500,000 population, or something along those lines, though I suppose finding historical population could be a problem) then a mayoralty should be listed? For example, if Rudy Giuliani or Antonio Villaraigosa were to hypothetically win election to the Senate, it'd be strange not to list that they had been mayors. Other ones I was wondering about are RNC/DNC chairs and presidential nominees; you haven't listed them above but I'm assuming that they're major enough offices to include? Also, I'm assuming "all federal offices above all federal offices" should be "all federal offices above all state offices" - just making sure that's what you meant.

I never know what to use in terms of endashes, emdashes and hyphens, so thanks for that. I think the date ranges for other offices are frequently quite useful/interesting, if only to see whether the office was held before or after the Senator's time in the Senate. Also, there are occasionally some pecularities, such as (to name one fresh in my mind) Jim Risch, who served as Lieutenant Governor of Idaho, then ascended to Governor, then ran for and was elected Lieutenant Governor again. Thanks for your help, and I'll get to work on Montana in a minute. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 16:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and one more question: what, if any, is the standard for including vacancies? There seems to have been a pretty long one in Montana's Class I seat in the 1890s, and there are presumably long Civil War-related ones in the Confederate states. So is there a certain length that I should use to determine whether a vacancy deserves its own line in the table? Thanks again — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 16:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On federal offices, yes that's what I meant. With mayors, I'd say if it is a really big city, NY, LA, Chi, Houston, Philadelphia, it should be included. I really don't know where that line should be, though. I'm not sure I've been consistent about party chairs, but I'd say include them. I haven't included presidential candidates because I'm not sure where to draw the line. Only major-party nominees? Everyone who ran in the general? Everyone who ran in primaries? Also, I have only included vacancies for the Civil War, as in User:Rrius/Sandbox/Sandbox 1. I figure it's a list of senators, and the vacancies are already handled at the "United States congressional delegations from" articles. -Rrius (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suddenly have to go where I won't have much internet access. If when you've finished the ones you're doing I haven't done anything, feel free to dig in. -Rrius (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chewbacca death

Hi, The reason why I tagged it as a hoax is because I did some digging on them. Having a song ranked by Rolling Stone would be an implication of notability, and thus db-band would not apply. Once I looked into this assertion however, I could not find any mention of them on the rolling stone site, or any mention of their single in google. So I changed it to hoax, which you then reverted. --Terrillja _talk 18:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure what Rolling Stone's policies are as to what winds up on their website (from the magazine), but I thought it'd be best to assume good faith and go on the admittedly pretty small possibility that the mention had never made its way online. I don't think that a mention on a list in Rolling Stone would indicate notability though; WP:BAND specifies that published works should be "non-trivial". Hope this clears up my reasoning there, and hopefully Vlg-ome can clear up the issue better on the talk page. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 18:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted now, so it's a moot point. Either way, I didn't get anything searching for the band on google either, which was part of my determination that it was likely a hoax.--Terrillja _talk 18:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Plot Against America

You have 'simplified' the list using "columns-list" on the Historical Figures section but I'm not sure it's working as desired; what should it do ? Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry about that. The template's intended to create the desired number of columns of equal height, spaced to the page width, which was my main motivation for changing it (as it was, the columns seemed too narrow). However, I forgot that the template only works in Firefox (I presume you're using Internet Explorer). I've now undone my edit and added a width= attribute to the table to partially get around the width thing. Thanks for alerting me. — Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 17:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Europahaus

On it. Will Do! Tonythepixel (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny Corndawg

I removed the speedy tag from Jonny Corndawg as the article has a reference from a weekly newspaper. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Epstein

Hi, thank you for capitalizing the last name, but I'm confused by the self reference tag, reading from wikipedia's Template:Self-published how does this article match that description? If you can point out which citation(s) you tried to verify and found it was misstated or misconstrued I would be grateful.

I am new to Wikipedia and am trying to do the best to adhere to the communities principles. Thank you StevenPine (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem. I tagged the article with {{self-published}} because I noticed that some of its references were to blogs hosted at TypePad, which, due to their self-published nature, are often not reliable sources. Wikipedia's policy on self-published sources says "personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable", and notes that the exceptions to this are if the author of the source has had his or her writing published in reliable third-party sources (read WP:RS to find out in more detail what these are and aren't), or if the sources reference information on themselves or their creators. This seems to be the case in this instance, though it might be wise to see if the facts referenced by self-published sources could be referenced with more reliable sources. If reliable sources are added, or if you feel that the TypePad sources are the only ones likely to be available, feel free to remove the template. Hope that all makes sense, feel free to ask for clarification on any of the above. — Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 18:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regraped db:band designation

Thanks for helping me sort all of this out, but you guys are much faster in taking this down than I am putting it up. I feel like I addressed each "complaint" systematically and I hope that you were able to actually view the changes. For instance, I added references, links, and "noteworthiness" with respect to genre of music. After your last post, I went and read the policy and I seem to easily meet this criteria:

"Is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles, or an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians. " AND "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." Keithlarson (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, thanks in advance for understanding that as I am new to all of this, I am not sure exactly how to communicate with the editors, but I am hoping that his "Talk" feature is the best possible forum. If not, I plan on reposting a simplified version of the wiki entry in hopes of getting a response. Thanks Keithlarson (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved and improved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keithlarson" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithlarson (talk • contribs) 22:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I didn't view any versions of the page after I tagged it, so I'm genuinely sorry that you feel that your article meets the notability criteria. As I'm sure you understand (just check Special:NewPages for proof unfolding in real time), someone creates an article trying to promote their band about every ten minutes, so it's unfortunate but unavoidable that sometimes legitimate articles get deleted. Unfortunately, now the article's been deleted, it's out of my hands; only administrators have the ability to restore deleted pages. You should probably take it to requests for undeletion now, where it can either be restored as an article, or (more likely) in your userspace (just follow the instructions on the page). — Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 23:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help,I sort of suspected that you guys just assumed I kept reposting the original article. Also, I totally understand about people trying promote their bands...I can only imagine the silly stuff you guys read. I will continue to navigate the system to see what, if anything can be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithlarson (talk • contribs) 23:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norvell house

Hi, I've tried to wikify the content of the page and added an image from Wikimedia Commons.

RLamb (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Invite

You are invited to join Wikipedia: WikiProject United States presidential elections because of your outstanding contributions to articles related to this new WikiProject.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for the invite. — Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 15:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Un-notable author

Hi. Why does it matter if a page about a book is by an un-notable author? It's not hurting anyone by having the page there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.24.47 (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it isn't hurting anybody. But it is hurting Wikipedia when Wikipedia contains material against its notability guidelines. Wikipedia's purpose is to inform people about things people want to read about; how would you like it if you were searching for a specific article and all you could find was unrelated stuff that nobody cares about but which was added because "it's not hurting anyone"? The notability guidelines are there to stop that from happening. — Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 22:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G1 - the finer points

I started a discussion here. Although I did not name you, you are the administrator I referred to in my comment. I thought you might be interested in this discussion. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, I've responded. — Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 15:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aydin Mirzazada

I've declined a speedy deletion for the above-captioned article because my assessment was that this individual qualifies under WP:POLITICIAN. However, it's a judgment call, and I wanted you to know I didn't make it idly; if you have information that is more accurate than my assessment, I'd be happy to revisit the issue. If you have any questions or problems, I'm at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kovács Géza

Hi, I deleted it as a copyvio (copy-paste of his homepage). Regards, decltype (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't check for copyvio. For some reason Friendly recreated the page when I tagged it. Thanks. — Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 15:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've had this problem with a few scripts as well. I'll see if I can do anything about it. decltype (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth mclaughlin listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Elizabeth mclaughlin. Since you had some involvement with the Elizabeth mclaughlin redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). —C45207 | Talk 22:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. — Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 22:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama Poster

Why did you undo my edit? I don't know how to do those reference things. If you need a reference, just google Nobama and the Obama "Nope" poster will appear. Emperor001 (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, adding references is pretty simple. Just click the link that says <ref></ref> on the line of shortcuts below the save and preview buttons and the disclaimer, then put the link to your source between the tags. You might also want to read Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability for more information.

However, in that case, I don't think a google search would suffice as a reference; as I'm sure you understand, there are plenty of derivatives of that poster, and it would be ridiculous to attempt to list every one. Because of this, we have to decide which are included based on the general notability guideline; all of the parodies and/or imitations listed on that article should have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Hope that clears things up. — Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 13:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daggett Color Change

I set the color to green because that is the color that Daggett has been using for his "Independent for NJ" campaign. Is there a reason you changed it back to gray? HerbertMMarx (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two reasons: first, it's almost always used for independent candidates in infoboxes and the like (see United States presidential election, 1992, Maine gubernatorial election, 2006 and 1998, United States Senate election in Vermont, 2006 and probably any other election article with an independent candidate in the infobox). Secondly, it's built into the infobox that if you type in "Independent (politician)", therefore avoiding the disambiguation page Independent, it automatically turns the colour to grey; as far as I know the only way to avoid this short of changing the template is to intentionally link to a disambiguation page, which obviously isn't desirable. Hope that's all alright with you. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 16:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, seeing your extensive editing experience, I was pretty sure there was one - it's too bad that there is not a way to set the color manually, because that green is the color he is running with (Check out his website - http://daggettforgovernor.com/wordpress/). Anyway, I don't think it's a big deal.HerbertMMarx (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential Election 2012 article

Hi there,

Myself and Timmeh have had a strong discussion about major change to this article. Before we did anything we wanted to get feedback regular editors of this page, William S. Saturn, Hysteria18, Jerzeykydd, Ratemonth, JayJasper, GoodDay, Qqqqqq, GageSkidmore, Reywas92, and FallenMorgan. Please send this to anyone else I may have left and please read the thread on Ruled Out and give us your feedback.

--Diamond Dave 16:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by David1982m (talk • contribs)

Solution to Ruled Out Debate NEED YOUR FEEDBACK!

Proposed solution to ruled out debate on [[1]]. Please submit your feedback. Thanks. David1982m (talk • —Preceding undated comment added 14:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the link. I was on holiday (er, vacation) and without internet access for two weeks, but the 2012 pages have shaped up very well in my absence. :) – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 10:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD ping

Hi, would you mind looking at this? ceranthor 21:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barney Frank

Frank specifically said he would not leave his Committee chair, and that is would being Senator, whether appointed or elected means, and it is a permanant departure from the House. Please take down his name. The article was poorly researched. Cite: WBUR: http://www.wbur.org/2009/08/26/frank -- Yellowdesk (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I don't understand what you mean. Barney Frank's name is listed under declined, because he'd declined to run. However, this doesn't change the fact that Marc Ambinder has said that Frank is a possible appointee, which is all the article is saying. I'll add a note to say that Frank has since denied interest in the seat, but to pick and choose which parts of a source we use is original research. (I apologise for not making this clear in my original edit summary). – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 19:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is of no consequence if some journalist in a poorly researched article mentions someone, when before the item was published, the individual in question flatly refused to even consider being a candidate. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can say is: yes, it really is. As far as I'm concerned, choosing which parts of a reliable source can be used (in this case, removing Frank's name from the sentence) is against policy, and is not going to happen. If you can find an alternative article exploring the same subject, you could rewrite that section, but I personally see nothing whatsoever wrong with the section as it currently stands. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 21:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that the writer is wrong and doesn't even have his facts straight, hence not reliable on the topic, and to continue to include that writer's speculations makes the article about that journalist, and not about the topic. I actually think all of the "potential" candidates lists are horsepucky. The only thing that matters is who raises money, and actually runs. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removed the word 'since' to reflect the fact that the Ambinder article came after Frank's statement. The article currently reads On August 27, 2009, journalist Marc Ambinder wrote in The Atlantic "the smart money is on former Gov. Michael Dukakis, or someone of his stature" and also mentioned Ted Kennedy's wife Victoria Reggie Kennedy, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, U.S. Representatives Barney Frank (who has said he will not "abandon" his position as Chair of the House Financial Services Committee)[17] and Ed Markey and former Representative Marty Meehan.[18] Do you have any complaints with this? I'm going to add some more refs/names from here in a minute. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 13:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, no complaints. In general I'm not going to edit the "potentials". -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I have now taken Delehunt and Frank off of the possible appointee list. Because they indicated they're not interested, they're not "possible appointees", and listing their names is not appropriate, in my view. Feel free to revise as you see fit, I don't care that much, and I'm going to be away for a week, and this whole possible / potential thing will turn to mush in about two or three weeks anyways. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD from Fractured Atlas

Hello Hysteria18, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Fractured Atlas has been removed. It was removed by ThaddeusB with the following edit summary '(contest prod - organization has been covered by NPR & other reliable sources (see http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Fractured+Atlas%22+artists&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=us&hl=en&scoring=a) - will propely source article ASAP)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with ThaddeusB before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)[reply]

Alaska

Hello Hysteria18, I believe you sent me a question concerning where I got the information for Alaska's boroughs in the 2008 election. To get those numbers you need to go to the Alaska Dept. of Elections website and add each town in each borough together. AndyHI18 (AndyHI18) 10:19p, 29 August 2009 (PST)

Bellenden Ker Range

If you use the 12 sentences or less method for assessing an article as a stub, then yes it still is a stub with 10 sentences only. However not everything has a lot to be said about it, especially remote geographical features. The article had sections, an infobox and a few references, so I thought it had progressed beyond the average stub. Also the correct template would of been {{Queensland-geo-stub}}. These are the reasons I reverted your edit. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD from Van Veeteren

Hello Hysteria18, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Van Veeteren has been removed. It was removed by Petpap with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Petpap before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)[reply]

Nice

The pic of The Scroll on your User Page is sweet. Haven't read OTR since grad school but got the Scroll version last Xmas and hope to get back to it before long. I have a poster of Jack in my office which generates mostly cleared throats and looks of bewilderment.

And thanks for the UBX I just stole about what "This User" is reading. That's a good one. Seduisant (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template cite news

I invite you to use {{cite news}} in your citations of news journals.
This template italicises the item "work =" variable automatcially, without extra effort or needless characters on the editor's part.
I also call your attention to the fact that the publisher is the corporate entity that runs the journal in question, (the "work"), and the journal is not necessarily the owner of the copyright, or the publisher. This is why the {{cite news}} template is useful, valuable, and why I consistently change news journal citations that use "cite web", and why I change your citations which designate some journal as the publisher.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a case of habit, I'm afraid. As far as I can tell, there's no actual difference in output. Still, I'll try and remember. :) – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 16:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neten Chokling

Dear Hysteria18, In the article Neten Chokling, the source was indicated, and it is authorizing the copy, as it is written on its home page " This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- Noncommercial 3.0 License." (Cc-by-sa-3.0) (see end of the page :[2]). Is it possible to revert to suppression, or could someone send me the article suppressed, it would help me to re-write if really necessary. I'll write also to Hiberniantears. With thanks in advance.--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I didn't realise it was licensed and probably should have checked better before tagging it. I'm not an administrator, so I can't undelete the page, but Hiberniantears might be willing to, or alternatively you can use the requests for undeletion page. Or if the article was a verbatim copy of the page on the other wiki, you could just copy and paste, making sure that the attribution and the source is very clear. Still, I'm far from an expert on copyright and the like, so I'd advise you to wait for Hiberniantears's advice. Again, sorry for incorrectly tagging your article. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 12:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for your notice on my talk page anyway. All the best.--Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 12:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Redirectionist redirect

Hello Hysteria18! I just noticed the userbox {{User Redirectionist}} that you created a couple of weeks ago. I assume that you did not intend to leave behind the cross-namespace redirect from User Redirectionist. You may wish to delete it via WP:CSD#G7 (author requests deletion) by placing a {{db-author}} template at the top of the redirect page. -- ToE^T 01:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- ToE^T 00:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Gordon Independent for PA governor

http://checkingthebalance.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/09/the-longshot.html

http://www.pa2010.com/2009/09/truck-driver-making-independent-run-for-governor-video/

http://www.ourcampaigns.com/NewsDetail.html?NewsID=61953

Is this the information you need to leave Richard's Information on the site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordonforgovernor (talk • contribs) 14:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on your talk page and added one of the refs to the article. Thanks. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 14:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Sanford on 2012 Republican Primary Page?

I think the Sanford debate will never end, lol. I have 3 sources that are still discussing Mark Sanford in conjunction to 2012 that are less than 6 months old, but JerzeyKydd is still insisting that discussion for him has ceased for 6 months. The sources I added are less than 6 months. I agreed to take down Ensign because no one is talking him in conjunction 2012, but why are people still talking about Sanford in conjunction 2012? I was wondering if maybe you wanted to add your feedback to this discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2012. Thanks. --Diamond Dave (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Social Cobra page

Hey,

I recently created a Wikipedia page called "Social Cobra". It's about a techno/crunkcore music project based in Middlesex, CT. I had one reference, a dependable one, yet you still deleted my page.

I don't understand why you deleted my created page. If you could give me an explanation, that would be great.

Qotsa37 (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please refrain from vandalising Wikipedians' user pages in future. This is not the correct way to resolve an editing dispute, and I don't know why you think you're entitled to civility on my part after that, especially when I didn't delete, or even tag for speedy deletion, the article you're referring to. The only article of yours I have tagged for speedy deletion was called Stupendous Seven and was deleted in June 2009 because it was an article about a club that didn't assert the importance or significance of the subject. A look at your talk page's edit history would've given you the explanation you require: Social Cobra was an article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. For further information, I'd suggest you talk to an editor actually involved in the deletion of that page; namely, Tnxman307 (talk), who deleted it, or Shem1805 (talk), who tagged it. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 16:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages

Hi,

qotsa37 again. I was wondering how to show signifigance for a created page.

Thanks,

Qotsa37 (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about the same specific article you're referring to above, I'd advise you again to ask the administrator who deleted that article. If you want to know for general reference, you should probably read Wikipedia's policies on notability and verifiability. If the subject of your article meets the general notability guideline and includes references to reliable sources, it probably won't be speedily deleted. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 18:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NYC Mayor election 2005

That was clearly vandalism there was absolutely no reason to get rid of that picture.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the swift response. Wizardman clearly explains his reasons for reverting in this edit summary. Again, I'd ask you to read WP:NOTVAND, and try to assume good faith. Thanks. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 23:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Debate over whether or not Bobby Jindal and Mark Sanford should be removed the 2012 Rep Primary Page

There seems to be yet another debate over Mark Sanford and now whether not Bobby Jindal should remain on this page. Since you are an editor on this page, I was hoping you would be interested in joining the discussion at the link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2012#This_article_is_not_about_who_will_be_running.3F

Please provide your feedback! Thanks so much!

--Diamond Dave (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MoneyTV with Donald Baillargeon

You PRODded this last month, and it was deleted. The original author dbmedia (talk · contribs) has asked for it to be restored, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have undeleted it. This is to let you know in case you wish to take it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Game Change

Hey Hysteria18. Just to let you know, I've expanded Game Change a bit and nominated it for DYK. Nice job creating that article! — Hun ter Ka hn 00:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's incredible, thanks. :D – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 01:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Game Change

On January 12, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Game Change, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]