Misplaced Pages

Today's Article for Improvement

I don't know how much work is left to be done on the project page, but I would think that perhaps our biggest task early on will be to recruit new members of the project. If you would like, I could try my hand at creating an invitation template. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good! I was thinking that one of the biggest hurdles would be finding a place on the main page, so I was thinking of creating a subpage, say, Misplaced Pages:Today's article for improvement/main page placement where we could mock up the mainpage and then work on where on it, and in what form the WP:TAFI (I'm going to use that as a working name) will appear. By the way, I really do think this is a good idea, but I am not at all sure this will succeed. People are very protective and conservative about the main page, and I do remember similar proposals in the past and that there was opposition, though I can't remember what the basis was.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. That sounds like a good plan. By the way, do you happen to know if there is a place that lists the different number and letter combinations and the color they correspond to? I am having trouble with the color scheme. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, see Web colors.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Here is what I have. I will let you make any adjustments you wish, and I'll leave the image to your discretion. I don't know how to do the documentation, so I'll leave that to someone who does. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems sort of geared for joining a Wikiproject rather than helping out with a process. Maybe it should say something like "we are in the early stages of initiating a ''']''' to plan, gain consensus on, and coordinate adding a feature to the ] wherein an article will be listed daily for collaborative improvement..." and I haven't thought it through fully (and I'm very tired right now) but that's more along the lines of what I would expect the invitation to say. We will definitely need others because I'm definitely not the person to design the mainpage add-on.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you think that one day is too short an amount of time? I have seen a suggestion that we simply revive Misplaced Pages:Collaboration of the week and consider a more frequent cycle when articles are gaining GA status in the first half of the week. Does that sound more feasible to you? Or is what we have started the best option? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Misplaced Pages editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Misplaced Pages editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi 17:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi again 2xDoubleHelix. It's nothing personal. This is an encyclopedia. The page you created is fine for your blog, your facebook page, other places. but there's nothing encyclopedic about it. What would you think if you opened up encyclopedia Britannica and saw an article on a random person's car? Their stereo system? Their DVD player? Misplaced Pages may look like a social networking site where you can post whatever you want but it really is an encyclopedia with all that that implies. Have you read the two pages I linked in the nomination, on notability and verifiability? Please also also look a Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand your opinion on this topic. Like I edited into the article, this is an article in progress. It may look like 'some random person's car,' but in fact it is becoming a very popular sight in Washington. It is more than a stereo system or a DVD player. I did read the pages prior to your posting them, and as I stated before, it's a work in progress, as it takes more than one editing to cite all sources of an article. I'm just asking that you understand that not everything can be done in an instant, and as I see no option to save it in a non-public setting, it was posted publically. It will continue to be revised and I hope you will not continue to persecute the article for deletion. Sincerely 2XDH.

The deletion discussion will last one week (unless snow closed). Topics of encyclopedia articles must have been the subject of significant treatment in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Are there real, published newspaper stories about your car? Magazine articles? Published books that cover it? Of course not. You can choose to see this as "persecution" but it would be better if you delved into what Misplaced Pages is and our requirements and voluntarily agreed with its deletion, realizing that you really had not thought enough about what is necessary for a topic to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. It's not a matter of opinion. The deletion is fairly inevitable. It's up to you to choose to try to understand better why that's going to happen, why that should happen, despite yourself.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Rather amusing that you assume it's my vehicle under discussion. Magazine articles? Not yet, they will be published in the next few months. Newspaper articles? Again, such take time and are in progress. Television coverage? Yes. I understand that you may not be able to wrap your head around something known as "folk art," but these types of artistic ventures are fairly common to many. And while I appreciate that you have nothing better to do than troll Misplaced Pages, you can come off of your soapbox, as there are plenty of articles that have far less merit than the one in question. "Our requirements" offers nothing more than the obvious mental picture of a self-obsessed, socially awkward person sitting in his mother's basement eating cheetos and drinking redbull. YOU are not Misplaced Pages, honey, so go get a real job. 67.138.87.94 (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It's OK, I'll fix all the facts, and then you can go bother some other person. I hope you have a good day. Don't forget to get some sunlight. Vitamin D is known to increase positive moods (Don't believe me? Search for it on Misplaced Pages) 2xDoubleHelix (talk) 10:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That tells me everything I need to know.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me if I appear to be being nosy but I couldn't help but see these comments and was wondering, since I am rather new here and trying to learn the proper process of creating articles myself, i thought I would ask a question about your comment. If (after thinking about this for a few long minutes) that when you want to write an article but the topic may be in dispute, such as this one appears to be, would it be a good idea to maybe write the article in your sandbox until it reaches the point where it has been edited and referenced well enough to be an encyclopedia type of article before putting up for the world to see? Just curious. I am unable to see the article that you two are talking about because it wasn't named in this particular section and the user page for 2xdouble appears to be non existent at this time. Ț♥ttØØdẄ♥itre§ 05:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It won't tell you much about the deleted article but see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Unicorn Jeep. Tattoo, yes it's often better to develop articles in one's sandbox—especially if your first posting is not ready for DKY and you plan on nominating it—but this is not a good example of anything for you because you're a good faith editor earnestly trying to learn the ropes and I don't imagine the first article you create will be a promotional and nonsensical piece of drivel that violates all of our inclusion policies. This was a troll editing in bad faith. You're not, so there's no take away for you. Actually, maybe there is. Notice how I responded to the attack, immediately above? There are many ways to handle that, but almost all involve engaging with the person in some way—Don't attack me! I'll report you!; You're wrong about me!; Fuck you! here's an insult back!—all of them, it's what they want, what they feed off of. Resist the temptation and Misplaced Pages:Don't feed the trolls. I meant everything I said in my short response: "That tells me everything I need to know", because I really had learned everything I needed to know. They are a troll, not worth my time; not editing in good faith; not going to listen to anything I say or have a real discussion, and so I'm not going to waste my time further in any substantive response because that engagement would not be useful and is what they want. It can be quite difficult for people to do this. Anyway, spending too much time at the teahouse may insulate you from the darker side, the tons of crap we get everyday from people, the vandals the trolls and POV warriors. These too have to be dealt with. We delete a few thousand new articles everyday as we must. If you want to see why, hang out for a while at Special:NewPages and open up many new pages as they come along. It's an eye-opener.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for opening my eyes to that. I will check out the link you suggested and I do have plans to stick around for awhile. I am very slow getting started with much editing because I am really wanting to do things right and not the wrong way. This chick is not gonna be a fly by night, fly in fly out, wiki editor. Ț♥ttØØdẄ♥itre§ 15:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

I like what you said about that change in the "synthetic" link. I had linked to the disambiguation page without realizing it. I could understand your wording. Thank you. Ț♥ttØØdẄ♥itre§ 04:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you be interested...

...in nominating another of my articles for DYK? (If not it's OK. I won't be insulted.) If you might, it's here:User:Tlqk56/John R Tunis. I was just going to spruce up the article about the author who turned my son into a reader, and found out there was a lot more to him than I thought! Honestly, I could write a book about him, no problem. But I think I've done what I can for the article and I'm feeling ready to move on. I'm sure it's bigger by at least 5, (Maybe 50?? Is it too big? Sometimes I felt I was creating a monster.) I was thinking of a tag like "DYK ...that John R. Tunis, who has been called the inventor of the modern sports story, took part in the first trans-Atlantic Wimbledon broadcast to the United States?" or maybe "was part of the first trans-Atlantic sports broadcast?" When you have a chance let me know what you think. Thanks for considering it. Tlqk56 (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I would be happy to! This is just a quick note to say YES while I'm running out the door. More later.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the hook, it seem to me you can fit in both facts. How about this for the hook:

...that John R. Tunis, who has been called the 'inventor of the modern sports story', took part in the first trans-Atlantic sports cast and the first broadcast of the Wimbledon Championship to the U.S.?

But cart before horse. Before this can get started you will need to replace the content of the existing article with the content you wrote in the sandbox. You realize that the history of the sandbox can't be merged into the article? You will need to replace the content with the content you wrote and YOU must do it for copyright attribution. There should be no problem on the expansion front – I just checked, and its more than an eleven times expansion! Regarding its length, no it's not too long at all. It may be that there's a way to break it up with some lower level section headers though. I haven't looked at the content yet in any detail except to note that it appears at a glance very well referenced.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Great! I didn't want to post it until you'd had a chance to look at it and see if you wanted to mess with it, and thought it was OK. Should I do it now? Using both facts for the hook is a good idea, for some reason it didn't occur to me to try it. (Just one reason I think it helps to have someone else involved.) Thanks bunches. Tlqk56 (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Stealing a moment from work. You can add the material right away. Remember that we have five days from the moment you add it to make the DYK nomination, so the timing of when you replace the material in the existing article is not important. On the issue of "messing with it" I do, but I can't until it's added to the article because that would cause a copyright problem. Specifically, there would be a big problem if you weren't the only substantial contributor to the sandbox because the article already exists. If other people had substantively added to the sandbox, when you transferred the material over their copyright attribution for their part would be lost, and as I said, this is not eligible for a history merge, both because it has a separate origin, and it has an overlapping timeline.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I has now been moved to John R. Tunis. Tlqk56 (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I see you found the NYT obit -- great. One of my frustrations is that I can rarely access obits for the people I write about. :( Thanks for the nice CE job. After looking at it for so long, nothing registers. I left you a message on my talk page, too, in case you didn't see it. Have a great day, and stay cool. Tlqk56 (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding I found one other photo here, http://www.unz.org/Pub/SaturdayRev-1941sep20-00003. It's not very good and not much earlier, though. Published in 1941. Frustrating to keep seeing that nice photo of his father as a younger man, but none of him! (My best friend is expecting her first grandchild in a week, and I still need to finish the baby quilt, so I'm off to do sew for a while.) Tlqk56 (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, not a great photo, though it looks like it was taken about twenty-five years earlier than the one I found at least. I've just copyedited the last two sections which I had not gotten to the other day. Once again, it's really good. Two minor notes. There a few places where I think in text attribution is needed, i.e., you have a quote from someone editorializing about him, which I think should say something like "according to ____ in _______...." I added that in in one or two places but for others I did not have access to the source and it's unclear whether the quote should be attributed to the source you use in the citation, or possibly whether the source itself is quoting someone else. Anyway, no need for hurry on a lead (or a photograph). Neither are needed in any way for DYK or course, and a good article nomination, if made today, wouldn't likely be looked at for a few months. The DYK is now posted at {{Did you know nominations/John R. Tunis}} and can be viewed as transcluded on the nominations page at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on July 18.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks so much! I'm about to go out but will have time later today to work on those attributions. I learn so much whenever I work with you, I really appreciate it. Tlqk56 (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Anytime. I must admit that I despise writing leads and find it very difficult. Maybe I'll go post a reward bounty for doing so and get someone else to do the dirty work!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, that would be one way. :) Maybe I'll look for some similar GAs and check out their leads, then try my hand at it in my sandbox. Most of the articles I write are so short I've never really worried about leads... I think I fixed the in-text attributions. I may have messed up tenses some when I added the info, but I tried to keep it straight. (In my head, since a book still says something, all refs to content should be present tense, but I think WP does it otherwise.) Let me know if there's a problem or something else I should be doing in the mean time. Tlqk56 (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, you could go write some more good articles. I'll make you a standing offer: until such time as you feel comfortable and want to do a DYK yourself, every article you create, you need but drop me a note, suggest a hook, and I'll do the DYK. Deal? And really it's no imposition at all. The copyedit, which you didn't ask for but I volunteered to do, took a few hours. The DYK nomination literally took me less than five minutes. There is one more issue with the article but it's something others might object to but I actually like. Your use of {{rp}} may be objectionable to some (I don't think it would fly at WP:FAC) for example. The reason is that it's use is geared toward a single citation that you are going to use many, many times with a wide range of page numbers and even then people think shortened footnotes are the way to go. It was actually created by a friend of mine to stop my whining, its genesis is from this conversation and it's more for the problem it solved there. Anyway, I don't know that you need to do anything about it. I just wanted you to have full information.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have several more articles in the works -- whether they'll qualify as GA I don't know. I like your DYK proposal --it lets me concentrate on learning to do one thing well before I start something else. But I'd like to understand the rp footnoting issue better. Am I using it wrong? I guess I don't know what a shortened footnote is. Is there a page you can point me to so I can read more about them? I might not change what I'm doing, but I would like to know the options and issues involved. Thanks for everything. Tlqk56 (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Nah, I think there's nothing wrong with using {{rp}} (and no, you're not using them wrong at all). Some purists just don't like them. I actually like them a lot. Read Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Joseph Barbera as an example. About halfway down the page there is a discussion of the template's use that carries through to the end of the page, with FAC regulars commenting. The alternative is shortened footnotes. A fairly recently promoted feature article using them is William S. Sadler.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I read the pages and looked at the examples. Personally I still like the {{rp}} format, it's so easy to use, and I don't have any problem overlooking those little numbers floating above the print when I read. The shortened footnotes make everything look like a term paper, which is fine, I guess, but kind of stuffy-looking to me. I suspect that academic-oriented folks prefer them because they see them all the time. Anyway, thanks for the heads up. It's good to know some people might object to the form I'm using, but I don't think I'll change unless it becomes necessary. (In 50 years someone will invent a newer method and some folks will protest about dropping {{rp}} for it.) Tlqk56 (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hannah Cattell

I am not obsessed with Hannah Cattell but is it not true that all Hannah Cattell's are related, though they are not the same person, and she was Laura Bogart. I take it we don't want to sexually harass the Sheffield Hallam University scholar. I know that if I were her I'd be feeling harassed too if my name was famous or if Joe does one too many favors for me too. Frances Shaw is the University of Sheffield scholar. CallieMacPherson (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Callie. You have a confusion. I deleted an attack page posted at Hannah Cattell on November 8, 2007. The disambiguation page you posted earlier today at that title was not deleted by me but by administrator Hut 8.5.

However, I agree with that deletion. Please read Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation#Deciding to disambiguate. Note the sentence: "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Misplaced Pages article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead" (emphasis added). Thus we only need to provide disambiguation for articles already in existence that people might have a confusion between. For that reason, since the disambiguation page you created was for two topics neither of which has existing articles, such a page was not warranted.

Meanwhile, I have to admit that I can't really make heads or tails out of much of your post. What does any of this have to do with sexual harassment, the university and these other people you mention?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Fuhghettaboutit, there's no need to have a disambiguation page unless we have articles to disambiguate. I don't know what CallieMacPherson is talking about either. Hut 8.5 12:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Barfüßiger Februar

Regarding the sources your search turned up, I can have a look at them and see what I can do with them to improve the Barfüßiger Februar article, if you wish. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you speak German? I think you will find it very difficult, as I did, unless you do. The Google Books search is just an indication. There's lots more places to look, like Highbeam, JSTOR, etc. However, when you say "if you wish", please note that I have no attachment to this particular article whatever. I just happened across it one day and decided to fix it up a bit. It's unfortunately one of the hundreds of thousands of stubs sitting around gathering dust. Sure go for it! but it makes no difference to me if you focus on this article or another in the mountains of them that are sitting around.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I do indeed speak German. I still feel WP:NOT#DICDEF#1 applies to an article such as Angekommen wie nicht da. Or is the fact that the article says "It was first published in 1994." (which is already mentioned at Herta Müller#Works) enough for DICDEF#1 not to apply to this article? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 08:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. WP:DICDEF and/or WP:NOT#DICDEF have no applicability whatsoever to this subject since they cover dictionary definitions and this is a book. Books are not books or phrases that can have dictionary entries, ever. It's like saying "X does not meet WP:BIO" when the article is about an inanimate object.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by your second sentence. In which way is the content of Angekommen wie nicht da more than a definition? Sure, one could argue now that the sentence "It was first published in 1994." makes it more than just a definition, but I question whether DICDEF#1 really is to be interpreted in such a narrow way. But I can agree to the view that if the article can be expanded, it should be expanded instead of being deleted. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:DICDEF is for words and phrases – things that could be in a dictionary. A book could never be in a dictionary. It's not a word or phrase it's a book. This is a threshold for WP:DICDEF to even come into play. As I said in my analogy, it's like you're trying to apply the notability criterion for biographies to a topic that's not about a person. Another analogy might be saying an article fails some criterion of a guideline about WP:TRAINS when the topic is a tree; fails article naming conventions when you're not talking about an article title, and so on. WP:DICDEF applies to words and phrases that appear to be things that are really just dictionary entries and could not be expanded to become encyclopedic. Books are never the topic of dictionary entries. It's a non sequitur to even talk about WP:DICDEF in the context of its application to a book stub.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the name of a book is a proper noun, so wouldn't be in a dictionary. Did you find anything on JSTOR or HighBeam? I found this review on JSTOR. I think I am going to drop a request at WP:RX and check whether that contains something. Still, wouldn't it be more appropriate to use that information to expand Herta Müller#Works and split that into a separate article only if it becomes too long for that section? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

New Lead for Tunis

Hi. I wrote a new lead for John R. Tunis. I don't know if it's right, but it should be better. Feel free to tinker if you like. Tlqk56 (talk) 02:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It's great and with the in-text attribution you added, I think this would sail through a good article nomination and I will do so after the DYK (unless you tell me you'd rather). As I indicated, once I do the good article nomination, expect nothing to happen for two months or so, while it glacially moves up the backlog list of article to be reviewed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free to nominate it yourself. I appreciate the help. Tlqk56 (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

TAfI

Are you still planning to work on the Article for Improvement project or is that likely to not come together after all? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I do plan to work on it. It just needs to brew a while in my brain and then I need a i period of time where I can focus, and I need a procrastination period. I can't explain my own psychology. I will take it further if no one else does, but I'm slow.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, sounds fine to me. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Anarchy

ENLogic (talk · contribs), who you blocked for edit warring, seems to be at it again using 75.85.176.10 (75.25.175.118 seems to have been their previous address). See this AN/EW thread. benzband (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Blocked as well.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Tootsie roll

Ha! Why thank you Mr. Cow! I'm amazed you were able to make an account and type this message, what, with the lack of thumbs and all.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

That is not very pollically correct of you >.< benzband (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You have news moos. And BTW, pollical is an adjective meaning "of the thumb". benzband (talk) 09:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for John R. Tunis

New DYK article, Secret River

OK, the new article, not an expansion, is here: The Secret River (Rawlings book). Of course any changes and suggestions are welcome. There is already another book by the same name but by a different author, so it needs a DAB page. Am I allowed to just create one, or is there a particular process for that? I will go through and add the link to appropriate articles once it's made. Also, I'm adding an image of the first edition cover to the infobox. Since the later edition had different illustrators and garnered a significant amount of coverage do you think fair use would allow an image from that book, too? Either the cover or an interior illustration?

I thought this might work for a hook: "…that Leonard Weisgard illustrated Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings' children's book The Secret River in cream on dark brown paper because publishing conventions in 1955 did not allow the characters to be shown with dark skin?" (Cited at the beginning of Editions, awards.)

BTW, do you have JSTOR access? I don't and there's an article here I'd love to be able to read. I think there's a good chance it would have more info to add to the article. Thanks again for everything. Tlqk56 (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Great. I don't have time right now to look at the article in any depth, but I made a quick request for the JSTOR article on your behalf here (try to remember this, because it comes in very handy: the shortcut is "WP:RX" ). Some other quick notes: does it need a DAB page or just a hatnote? – see WP:TWODABS. Regarding the illustrations, I think any further fair use images would only qualify if the images themselves were part of the sourced commentary on the book appearing in the article, and not just as relevant decoration.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a hatnote was what it needed, so I added one. Have copied down WP:RX for future ref. Tlqk56 (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Just finished a small copyedit. Great work. I like the hook but it's 217 character (200 is the outside limit) so has to be pruned somehow (by the way, this is a tool you can use for this, use readable prose, without the wikimarkup). Unfortunately, I think something essential needs to be taken out because no matter how I try to condense it, I can't get the current information in. The best I can come up with is to remove the illustrator's name entirely:

…that Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings' children's book The Secret River was illustrated in cream on dark brown paper because 1955 publishing conventions did not allow characters to be shown with dark skin?"

Do you have a different reworking?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you like the article. Sorry about the hook, I thought I'd checked it. How about "...that Leonard Weisgard illustrated Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings' The Secret River in cream on dark brown paper because publishers in 1955 did not allow characters to be shown with dark skin?" While not quite as precise I think it's still accurate, and it comes out at 189. BTW, when I start typing The Secret River in the search bar, why doesn't the new article come up as an option? I have to add (Rawlings book) myself and click on it to get there. That doesn't seem right to me. Tlqk56 (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good! I'll go do the nomination. I think the search issue is just because it hasn't been indexed yet, having been moved to the mainspace yesterday. Give it a day. Tiny tip from my copyedit of this and the prior article: When you have a nested quote, one that ends with an apostrophe followed by a quotation mark, if you just use it in that form it formats as <'"> but if you place curly brackets around it {{'"}} it formats like this: <'"> The same thing is true for the opposite, i.e., if at the start of a quote you would be typing quotation mark followed by an apostrophe, place that in curly braces as well.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. See {{Did you know nominations/The Secret River (Rawlings book)}}, transcluded here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I've saved it and will try to remember to use it. I had wondered what those changes meant, but didn't actually understand them. Tlqk56 (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse

Hi Fuh! Just a reminder about a few things at the Teahouse - first, thank you so much for participating. If you have interest, it'd be great to have you add your profile to the Host page! You practically are one. :) You can find that page here. Second, please familiarize yourself with our host tips and the host responsibilities page. There you can learn a bit more about what makes us different - we greet each visitor (everyone likes to be welcomed when they visit a new place!), use as little wiki jargon and links to policies as possible and keep it friendly and simple. That's one of the things that makes the Teahouse so successful - we avoid links when necessary and just give our visitors the answers straight up - it's a proven winning cup of tea :) Also, I encourage you to invite other editors to the Teahouse to find help. Right now we have more people answering questions than we do visiting, so we can use all the help we can get. Thanks so much for all you do on Misplaced Pages! :) SarahStierch (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You would think (HD carryover)

You would think, after all the digging I did looking at {{astray}}, I would have read your name at one point or another! Haha, egg on my face I suppose. BigNate37_(T) 05:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It was a bit humorous! I was chuckling as I read your post, not at you but thinking about what your reaction was going to be when you saw my response.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Talkback 2

-- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 18:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Now for the inevitable

Since I've already dragged you into it, can you check Template talk:Ln#redirect=no again please? I made a couple mistakes of omission, one of which requires a protected edit to fix. BigNate37_(T) 03:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I see you've stepped away; I'll make a general protected edit request there. BigNate37_(T) 04:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It's amazing how long sometimes edit protected requests remain open. Not enough people monitor the category (I have it on my category watclist).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. There are many areas that often backlog if one knows where to look. BigNate37_(T) 04:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

New Message

Hello Fuhghettaboutit. I'm not sure if you follow messages deeper into the thread at the Teahouse - I left a brief new message for you there. (I've used the blue colored "you have new messages" template once, unable to locate it now - I will find it again, just tired) Take care. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Expansion_Tag Albeit27 (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:La et al.

Since you've recently edited {{lx}} I thought you might be the one to address my question to.

CorenSearchBot and VWBot (and maybe some other that I've forgotten about) list new articles with possible copyright problems at WP:SCV using {{la}}. I haven't been active there recently, but it used to be that articles which were deleted showed as redlinks as normal links. When I looked at it today, however every article link is colored blue instead whether it has already been deleted or not. Is that related to the change you made? VernoWhitney (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't see how the changes I made would have that result. It sounds like a purging issue (sometimes you need you make a null edit to a template to get it to actually purge certain inclusions). However, I was implementing edit protected requests of another user who may be able to shed light one way or another. I will drop a note on his talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Secret River

Hi, I hope things are going well with you. I've responded at DYK, but the guy hasn't gotten back to me, and as you'll see there my computer time is restricted right now. Would you mind stopping by and doing whatever you think needs to be done to get it moving again? I really appreciate it. Tlqk56 (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyright v plagiarism

Thank you so much for your help and explanation. I chose to rewrite some of the work with improved references and learned in the process.Mdscottis (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for The Secret River (Rawlings book)

Slender Man

I don't care what cyber-sad case has been trying to push this meme on Misplaced Pages, so you can keep the page protected if you want. But it should NOT be redirecting to Bogeyman. So please redirect it to List of Internet phenomena or something similar. Serendious 18:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC):

Hi Serendipodous. I'm assuming there's a rationale behind your request but you haven't provided one and I have no personal interest in this topic nor familiarity. I have no idea from what you've said why it's objectionable that the redirect point where it is presently pointing, nor why it would be better if it pointed elsewhere, especially since the redirect target is currently a sourced section of the bogeyman article dedicated to this particular topic with its own section header, whereas, the article you suggest it might be better pointed has an unsourced and much less detailed passing mention. There's a cart before horse issue here. Maybe the detail from Bogeyman, doesn't belong there at all and the sourced detail should be merged to the other page, or maybe the source is insufficient and this belongs no where on Misplaced Pages at all (in which case maybe the redirect should be deleted and creation protected ). But none of this is first a redirect issue. Until such time as the article issue is dealt with, it makes little sense to me that the redirect would point elsewhere than at the only place any sourced and detailed information appears on this topic. I will drop a note at the talk page of the user who added the detail about the subject and requested the redirect, as he is an active user.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• • There's nothing in the cited source that connects it with the bogeyman. The bogeyman is a legendary creature whereas the cited source makes it clear that Slenderman is a fictional character with a very definite author. The source also depicts the Slenderman largely as a Freddy Kreuger-type slasher, whereas the bogeyman is a monster who hides in closets, under beds etc and is aimed specifically at children. Serendious 00:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't remember what bit of wiki history or discussion led me to think that bogeyman was the right place for this to be mentioned, but I agree that the source does not make that connection, so it should go. Whether it gets included somewhere else or not I don't much care. I didn't realize it was going to be such a crap-magnet, but it sure is a problem. Dicklyon (talk) 02:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't really care where it goes either, as long as it goes away from Bogeyman. Serendious 10:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Redirects follow article content, not the other way around; your request was backwards. Since for reasons I'm not sure of you haven't removed or merged out the content from Bogeyman in advance of this, I'll go do so, so that changing the redirect makes sense.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I've never been in the situation before of having to request a redirect from an administrator. It seemed more logical to me to fix the redirects before removing the content, since otherwise any reader looking for "Slender Man" would simply have added it back in again. Serendious 14:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to dredge this up again but I think I've found a better home for the Slender Man; I've created a larger subsection in the article Fakelore; a small enough article so that the topic has room to grow. Serendious 20:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Cheers.-Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but this should have been discussed on the redirect talk page instead of here. I think it should redirect to the Creepypasta/Slender Man section because it is more relevant there and provides a better context than a redirect to Fakelore would. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:TAFI

There hasn't been much activity here for awhile. I was wondering what you think might be the next step? AutomaticStrikeout 20:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Glad you explained in the edit summary

Well, I'm definitely glad for your edit summary. I was manually checking the citations and converting them to {{cite web}} (I hadn't gotten very far before I noticed your edit). I went to double-check the current version's references section. Lo and behold, they were all gone. Hah, so yeah I'm grateful for that edit summary, or I'd have been very confused and probably pretty annoyed too. I'm going to assume the references are in your capable hands though, and divert my attention elsewhere. BigNate37_(T) 22:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You can check right now:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hardly necessary now! BigNate37_(T) 22:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

thank you

For your information...

Thanks to Ryan Vesey we have our first nomination in the WP:TAFI project, so I'm notifying all the project members. AutomaticStrikeout 20:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello... critque please?

Hello again, hope you are having a great day, I have been working religiously on this article today and am at a point where I would love some "critiquing". I have added sections and expanded on quite a bit of information. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Ț♥ttØØdẄ♥itre§ 02:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you and question

Hey there Fuhghettaboutit, thanks that was a quick response re: the Woodmansee article. I have a question about using full names. I thought that it was proper etiquette while editing articles with the use of names to use the full name ie: Michael Woodmansee or Jason Foreman the first time and then after that it is proper to use last name only? Thanks again for helping to improve the article. Ț♥ttØØdẄ♥itre§ 03:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh and i was also wondering when you put the new ref's in place do they need to go in order like 1,2, 3 or can they be out of order such as 6, 3, 7? I have seen them mostly in order and I tried to do that way but with the fixes they are out of order. It became rather confusing to try and keep them in order (because some of them were there already) so just wondering. The previous editor/s when adding the ref's had not expanded them and they were essentially just links, I went and improved upon the ref's adding pertinent information such as date time author and ref name was this a good thing to do?Ț♥ttØØdẄ♥itre§ 04:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I did use a full name of the victim later because something about the fact it was a child and the sentence it appeared in made it feel right to use the first name as well. Normally you do try to make references appear in order and not doing so would be a criticism at FAC. They're mostly in order now, though I think there's one or two places where multiple cites are used next to each other and the order just needs to be tweaked. Oh yes, definitely, full attribution of citations is always desirable. We want people to be able to look at the citation and have full information so that they can most easily verify for themselves the source and fuller attribution fosters that goal. So yes, definitely a good thing to do. Ref names though are only needed if the reference is to be used again, but it doesn't hurt to provide a ref name even if a ref is only used once, since it then makes it easier to use again if someone comes along who is seeking to expand the article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Another free account for usually-paid research access

I'm pretty sure you already have the Highbeam stuff, but you can also apply for Credo access through WP. I just got approved. Haven't used it yet, but anything like this can't be non-useful. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 10:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey Stanton! I have applied for them all (including JSTOR). I am so busy (and lazy) though that unfortunately, my writing is now virtually nonexistent--mostly just helping out others and using these services for verification. Hope everything is going well.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Glad to help!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Secret River (Rawlings book)

The article The Secret River (Rawlings book) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:The Secret River (Rawlings book) for things which need to be addressed. Kürbis (✔) 18:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Secret River (Rawlings book)

The article The Secret River (Rawlings book) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Secret River (Rawlings book) for comments about the article. Well done! Kürbis (✔) 11:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the review Kürbis. Far be it from me to look a gift horse in the mouth and all that but, I am confused. I still hadn't addressed your main criticism regarding the lead, which I was going to tackle when I had more time (and responding to two other criticisms has not been possible because the main author of the article is on a wikibreak and I nominated it on her behalf).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I decided that the lead is ok for the article's length, although it could be expanded a bit. The other two points were nitpicks. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 12:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Well great and thanks again! I still plan on tweaking the lead:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Misplaced Pages email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Misplaced Pages will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Misplaced Pages).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Misplaced Pages better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Article titles

Saying that WP:RM "should" be used is just plain wrong. This in non-controversial to anyone who knows very much about the subject. You will notice that there is an ongoing request to change "should" to "must", and they always get very quickly shot down, always the same way, by pointing out the WP:RM is not mandatory. The article should reflect that consensus. I will try to see how it even got there and revert that, but no matter what, the article should reflect consensus. It is not necessary to make any proposal on the talk page for the change because it is a long standing understanding that WP:RM is a convenience, not a necessity. Apteva (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to revert. It was just a very poorly worded major change. followed by Apteva (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no "article". Anyway, your point is addressed to a strawman. Please read my edit summary. There is right now a massive discussion on the talk page, with numerous people participating, regarding this language: whether it should be kept, whether it should be changed, people opposing and supporting various language suggestions followed by an unclosed RFC on the issue. You obviously are aware of that discussion since you participated in it, but you nevertheless changed that very language under discussion to the form you prefer. It didn't matter how you changed the language—for, against, mandatory, completely optional—all irrelevant. The point is that while such discussion is under way seeking consensus, a unilateral change to a preferred version you think is "non-controversial to anyone who knows very much about the subject" is patently improper.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Edits on Ars Nova (Theater)

Hi, I just wanted to thank you for your edits to my pending submission on Ars Nova. I've been working very hard to get the page up to Misplaced Pages's standards for publication, so the fact that you went in and edited things like that while I'm waiting for the article to be reviewed was extremely helpful and selfless, IMHO. Thank you very much. RunnerOnIce (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I often copyedit random articles and since I contribute at help forums, my eye caught your post at the Teahouse. The reason I said "start copyedit" is that I was planning on going back and fixing the references formatting. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Article requested per fair use

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B86iegI5pG5TNHZ4WjI5b0VXak0

Please let me know when you are done. Churn and change (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Done, much appreciated. Unfortunately, It only has the one line I could already see see through the Google News snippet. I was hoping it might actually say something about the history. It is near impossible to find substantive sources on this topic.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Newspaper clippings are a rich source. Trouble is, not much of it is encyclopedic; sifting through is hard work. Here is a sample of newspaper clips on the subject largely from the early 1900s. Most of it is public domain. Also, a New York times reviewer once called David Mamet's language an exploding cigar for its ability to turn back and bite you: March 23, 1996. Note the "The Stranger" article: it refers to a book "Life of the Party: A Visual History of the S.S. Adams Company Makers of Pranks & Magic for 100 Years" which might have something to help you. Churn and change (talk) 04:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on references.

Many thanks for the help you gave me on fixing broken references. It worked a treat and was explained clearly! My apologies for not thanking you earlier. I quite simply forgot, how rude of me! --Elekebia (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Police Community Support Officer not Police community support officer

The Association of Chief Police officers refers to PCSOs in capitals as does the Home Office this takes precedent over an unofficial quango advertisement site or the BBC who are a private corporation and have no allegiance to the Crown see http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/LPpartnerships/2007/200709LPPGonPCSO.pdf and http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/corporate-publications-strategy/home-office-circulars/circulars-2009/002-2009/--T9062856 (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Lots of organizations will capitalize non-proper nouns – especially those most closely connected to them. What matters is our house style, and following from that, whether it is or is not a proper noun, and it's not. You're citing that source to say "see, this more official source capitalizes it" but I didn't cite those two sources as official anything to compete, I cited them as examples, where numerous others exist, to show it's not a proper noun. That's really the only question of relevance, and we look to third party sources for answers to such questions, not internal documents of the very organization at question, meaning a BBC source, for example, is actually much better in this arena.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hadji Ali for main page

Hi,

I've suggested your article Hadji Ali for a nonspecific date on the main page. If you object, please feel free to remove it at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/requests. Great article! Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Coming soon, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Thanks for the barnstar Pass, and you're welcome!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Slender Man redirect

Hi, can you redirect Slender Man back to its original target because the current target is not as appropriate nor specific as the previous one was. Thanks - M0rphzone (talk) 06:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The San Jose Mercury News article you requested per fair use

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/9158964/Mercury%20News.pdf

Please let me know when you are done.

Were those exploding-cigar sources I sent of any use? I suspect you missed that message? Churn and change (talk) 03:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

over/underlinking

Could you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#What_generally_should_not_be_linked_can_we_bring_this_to_closure

The "one link" rule/enforcement has gotten out of hand, I'm trying to get something closer to rationality. You made a serious proposal in July, and I like your proposal. But it wasn't driven to closure. If you want to substitute your proposal for mine, that's fine with me.

I'd appreciate any refinements to the proposal that is pending on the links/talk page. If it comes to something you'd support, I'd appreciate your stating the support on the talk page. There seem to be four zealots -- they need to be outvoted. Thanks Boundlessly (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Precious

Thanks Gerda! I appreciate it (I wish I knew what you meant about TotallyDisputed though:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I liked it, matched my thinking nicely, I totally dispute (with myself) my role in this so-called community, just created Category:Wikipedians who are not part of The Community ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Burck Smith

Hello, you left me a note on my User talk page that you were deleting an article that I had been working on for business founder/CEO Burck Smith citing copyright concerns. Recent feedback had already told me I needed to needed to provide more citations, which I had been working on before it was deleted. I would like to resubmit this article with these improved citations, but wanted your help so that I best met Misplaced Pages guidelines. So that my work wouldn't get completely removed again. Thank you. I was told to include this information and ask you before resubmitting: 23:34, 10 October 2012 Fuhghettaboutit (talk | contribs) deleted page Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Straighterline (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: of the sources cited in the proposed article, e.g http://www.acics.org/events/content.aspx?id=4922) Glowah (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John R. Tunis

The article John R. Tunis you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:John R. Tunis for things which need to be addressed. Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) @ 17:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John R. Tunis

The article John R. Tunis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John R. Tunis for comments about the article. Well done! Rcsprinter (state) @ 17:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Burck Smith article revised

Thanks for getting back to me. I made some revisions and resubmitted - I think I was confused because I was using content from another Wiki page and I thought linking to that page was enough, but I rewrote that section. The new article is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Burck_Smith Hopefully this passes your inspection and as always, your feed back is appreciated. Glowah (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess we are having a miscommunication since I'm not sure how anything could have been copied and pasted since I didn't copy and paste anything from any other site -- it was not my intention to infringe on any copyrights. Could you actually provide me an example of where you're finding duplicate content? Glowah (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, for example, "As a writer about education and technology issues, Burck has been published by Wired Magazine, Wired News, Converge Magazine, University Business and the National School Boards..." is copied and pasted from http://www.straighterline.com/about-us/our-team.cfm and I can tell it preexists the submission (i.e., it wasn't posted on the external site after the Misplaced Pages submission copying it) because I can see it in the wayback machine, here. In the next paragraph, "Smith published articles on local efforts to create community networks, electronic access to political information... appears to be taken from here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

{{Help me-helped}}

I've given a more detailed rationale for my changes at the talk page. Please consider responding. Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I've replied to your comment. Could you please see if the proposed tweaks are acceptable? If you're okay with it I'll probably update the template in a couple of days. Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Template talk:Z number doc

Hi. I left a note at Template talk:Z number doc. I'm letting you know in case you're still interested in that project. It wasn't totally clear to me where the discussion about the Z templates was supposed to go, so I just picked a talk page. Let me know if there's a better venue. I'd like to kill all those templates if possible. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Rudy Buttignol - Help with adding 2 entries to External Links.

Good morning, Fuhghettaboutit.

Would you please help me with something? I have read the info on Misplaced Pages about syntax and external sources but I am afraid that I am stuck!

1) I tried to add an article as an external link: http://povmagazine.com/articles/view/pointed-view-a-public-space-for-independent-voices

I got this message: Buttignol, Rudy. View: A Public Space for Independent Voices "Error: no |title= specified when using "Error: no |title= specified when using {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help)".". povmagazine.com. http://povmagazine.com/articles/view/pointed-view-a-public-space-for-independent-voices%7Ctitle=Pointed View: A Public Space for Independent Voices.

Something about"Error:" in large red letters! Will you please help me to fix this?

2) Also, I'd like to add this videotaped speech as an external link too: http://globalcivic.org/2012/10/24/public-salon-13-september-20-2012/ Would you help me with that too?

Thank you very much for any help.

Sofiabrampton (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, Fuhghettaboutit, benzband has helped me and the External Links are up on Rudy Buttignol. I am frustrated that I am having such difficulty with learning the syntax for things like this. Sofiabrampton (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I linked your User:Fuhghettaboutit/Toolbox to my user page, if you don't mind.

Bearian (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

But of course, mais oui. Glad you find it useful.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Style Network article naming

Hello, I noticed that the Style Network page was previously moved to Style (TV channel), now currently Style (TV network), with the explanation that the network doesn't brand itself with "Network", and with no discussion on the talk page. My understanding was that if a page's name is established with no need for parentheses, it is not necessary to move it to a term that requires parenthetical clarification. I was wondering if this particular case falls under an exception, and if not, perhaps receive assistance in reverting it to its original title. Thank you, 68DANNY2 (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

All fixed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Help with references

Hi there, I tried to continue our conversation re sourcing help and was unable--perhaps it timed out? I hope it is OK to move the conversation here. I'll copy my post as I tried to enter it at the Tea Room:

<ref>{{Citation
 | url = http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/November/12-ag-1369.html
 | accessdate = 2012-12-12
}}</ref>

Is this all I'd have to do? The best way for me to learn this is to try it a few times. I (mostly) wrote the Jay Cooke State Park article and tried to enter my MN geology book as a source but was unable to figure it out, so I'd like to try that. Would it be OK if I'd go to your talk page for help in the future?

Thanks for your patient help so far. Gandydancer (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, anytime. I can't guarantee I will get to your question immediately of course--especially lately I have been somewhat inactive, but we can have a slow motion conversation. Did you read over my explanation at the Teahouse and could you make sense of it? It's fine if it was too much. The above reference format you ask about (which I've placed in a certain type of tag so it can be seen in saved mode) is not a good citation because it does not provide most of the basic identifying material one would expect, that leads to easy verification. A web citation should ideally provide the name of the publisher, the title of whatever it is, the author and the date of the source. Sometimes not all of these are available, but a naked link with an access date is not enough information; a person cannot look at that citation and immediately know what it is and, in fact, the citation template you used will break because the field for "title=" must be supplied, but is missing. You could use {{citation}} or {{cite web}} here. This would be the format I would use, which you can copy and paste:

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/November/12-ag-1369.html|title=BP Exploration and Production Inc. Agrees to Plead Guilty to Felony Manslaughter, Environmental Crimes and Obstruction of Congress Surrounding Deepwater Horizon Incident|publisher=U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs|date=November 15, 2012|accessdate=December 12, 2012}}</ref>

The above is the compacted citation format (no spacing), but it is exactly the same as:

<ref>{{cite web
 |url=http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/November/12-ag-1369.html
 |title=BP Exploration and Production Inc. Agrees to Plead Guilty to Felony Manslaughter, Environmental Crimes and Obstruction of Congress Surrounding Deepwater Horizon Incident
 |publisher=U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs
 |date=November 15, 2012
 |accessdate=December 12, 2012
}}</ref>

which you can also copy and paste.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understood the first part of your explanation but when I came to the way to correctly do it, I was lost and realized that I will need to actually do some correctly to get it. What with Christmas so close, my editing time is quite short and I have been involved in edit warring that takes my time right now as well. Would it be OK if I move this to my talk page where I can use it for reference as I eventually try to learn how to do this? BTW, the way you explained it here seems the way to go and when I have time I will study it. Gandydancer (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, certainly you can move it to your talk page--you will need to copy and paste the raw code in edit mode; if you try to paste the text you see when just reading this page, it will not format at all in the way I have set it up:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. Just so that you know, this is so embarrassing. I feel I need to defend myself: IQ-wise I am in the top 5%. But I am a granny that jumped from thinking that having my own electric typewriter was the cat's pajamas to computers...so... As soon as I have time I will try to move the discussion to my talk page. For now I need to get back to Christmas projects and righting great wrongs on the internet such as the Misplaced Pages BP article. :-) Gandydancer (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You shouldn't feel embarrassed at all because I, and I don't think most people, would interpret it that way (that someone is unintelligent in any way because they don't know this stuff or that reading help pages is not enough). It's basically like learning an entirely new language. You are a like a native English speaker just dipping your toes into Spanish and I am someone who is fairly fluent in conversational Spanish helping you along (I am not the equivalent of a native speaker because I am no programmer, and know just a tiny bit compared to many of the computer gurus who inhabit this site).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've moved everything to my talk page. I won't have time to work on this for awhile but when I do I will come to your page with questions. Thanks again. Gandydancer (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!