User talk:Alpha Quadrant: Difference between revisions

Archives

---

__________Archive list ________

April 21, 2010 - May 31, 2010 June 01, 2010 - September 17, 2010 September 18, 2010 - October 02, 2010 October 03, 2010 - November 14, 2010 November 15, 2010 - January 03, 2011 January 4, 2011 - February 28, 2011 February 29, 2011 - May 22, 2011 May 23, 2011 - August 25, 2011 August 26, 2011 - October 12, 2011 October 12, 2011 - November 5, 2011 November 5, 2011 - November 21, 2011 November 21, 2011 - December 15, 2011 December 16, 2011 - February 7, 2012 February 8, 2012 - March 1, 2012

Please see the archives to the right for older messages.

Hi! I created this page to go alongside pages such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snuff_%28Pratchett_novel%29 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Spring, pages devoted to Pratchett's and Baxter's most recent novels. In fact, two of Baxter's later books exist only as "dead links" but I'm not enough of a Baxter fan to be able to create those pages. Pratchett, however, I know, so I thought I'd create this. It's really only a stub until more is known. As Wikipedia itself says "Newly released Discworld books regularly top The Sunday Times best-sellers list, making Pratchett the UK's best-selling author in the 1990s" I think the last 25 or so of Pratchett's books have all been number 1 best sellers - so I think The Long Earth is an important enough book to have a Wikipedia page.

Hope this explains what I'm doing!

regards Pat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwauctioneer (talk • contribs) 09:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that once the book is released, it is quite likely it will meet the notability guidelines for books. Until a book is released though, it generally does not meet the notability guidelines for books. The creation of articles on a book before a release is greatly discouraged. (See Wikipedia:NBOOK#Not yet published books) If you would like, I can accept the article for you, but there is the possibility that someone may nominate it for deletion because the book is yet to be published. Or, if you want to wait until it is closer to the release date, I can accept it for you then. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 14:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. It's difficult for me to judge - this is (to me) an important release; Pratchett is one of the UK's best-selling authors. I can understand the reluctance of Wikipedia to accept entries on non-existent books, but this one has an established pair of author and has got as far as having its ISBN assigned by the publisher (a major publishing house, they're part of Random). I'll accept your decision - if you want to leave it, I edit it and resubmit once I've seen a proof copy.

regards Pat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwauctioneer (talk • contribs) 16:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I've been contacted on Facebook by Philippa Dickinson, Pratchett's editor from Random House (I don't know how she found out about this - I thought all Wikipedia entries were "hidden" until published?) and she is, understandably I suppose, supportive of this entry becoming live. Could I therefore ask you to reconsider your decision re acceptance of this (admittedly stub) page?

Many thanks, & seasons greeting, Pat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwauctioneer (talk • contribs) 09:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added two sources and accepted the article. Wikipedia articles are under a NOINDEX, so search engines cannot pick up the article. However, anyone doing a search using the Wikipedia search engine can easily find the submission before it is accepted. It is quite possible that she also was going to write an article submission on the book, and noticed that there was already a submission. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AQ. Regarding User:Contaldo80, here[1] and here[2] there seems to be the genesis of a problem with yet another pot-stirring editor. I note he has a homophobic problem (easily seen if you peruse his talk). My decision now that this has played out is to walk away, but.... May I ask for advice? Would you reply at the appropriate place on my talk page? Djathinkimacowboy 15:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Djathinkimacowboy's talk page.

Hello. You have a new message at Djathinkimacowboy's talk page.

Since this is all concluded, you may disregard my notices above, and thanks. Djathinkimacowboy 18:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you come and have a gander at my proposal[3] and lend an opinion? I'd certainly appreciate it. I need to know if I am being obtuse or am I being given a hint here. Djathinkimacowboy 00:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may forget the request. Either laziness, stubbornness or obtuseness won the day and I'm abandoning the idea. Apparently they think I want to add filmographies and haven't a clue what I am actually proposing. Djathinkimacowboy 03:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,Alpha Quadrant. Recently you moved TTIS Newspaper to the Telegraph in schools.There were subpages, too.Are you a admin? If you're not, then you should be careful with articles that has subpages.I'm trying to move the subpage now.That's me! ^{Have doubt?} Track me! 05:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the talk subpage (singular) to the new title. I believe I have also sorted out the redirect chain that you created with the multiple page moves. The Good article nomination subpage wasn't even on the correct page then I performed the move. It should all be in the correct order now. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 06:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's all right now.I'm giving you a script which may be helpful to you-a Status Checker.Paste the code in your vector.js page.

importScript('User:Ale_jrb/Scripts/statusCheck.js')

That's me! ^{Have doubt?} Track me! 06:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already use it in the monobook skin, see User:Alpha Quadrant/common.js. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 06:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the userpage revert. "Pepper" @ 21:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

thank you for your recent post on my article submission page. I am little confused as to what steps need to be taken now to resolve the problem? could you please clarify?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Smith%26Lasso

thanks, Allan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith&Lasso (talk • contribs) 21:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, all of the sources in the article appear to be affiliated with the subject (first party sources). In order to establish the organization's notability, there needs to be significant coverage in reliable third party sources, such as newspapers, magazines, books, or other media published by organizations with a strong reputation for fact checking. Sources do not need to be online, or even in English. After you add two or three reliable sources, I should be able to accept it. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I'm vaguely aware that it's all not going quite right. I was finding that adding a reject template e.g. this didn't remove the article from the to-be-reviewed list, which is why I then did this. Treating me as if very stupid, take me through what I should have done; I'd like to get it right. I'll look into the use of the tool once I know what it should be doing. (And once I understand that, I'll remedy any mess I've made. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On any given submission there is:

{{AFC submission|||ts=20111219021656|u=Example|ns=5}}

Immediately following the AFC submission, there is |||. In between the first two vertical bars, | and |, is the status of the submission. If the space is blank, or if it has a letter h, then the submission is pending review. If there is a letter r, then a reviewer has marked the submission as "under review" to alert other reviewers of their work. If there is a letter d or t, then the submission is declined, or not pending review. The second set of vertical bars represents the reason the submission was declined. For example, if a submission was declined for lacking reliable sources, you would replace

• {{AFC submission|||ts=20111219021656|u=Example|ns=5}}

with the following

• {{AFC submission |d|v|ts=20111219021656|u=Example|ns=5}}

Notice that the only thing you are changing is what appears between the first three vertical bars. Everything after that is the submission metadata used by the review tool. In the case you linked above, there were two pending submission templates on the page. If one template remains marked as pending, it will remain in the to be reviewed list. I hope that answered your question. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, that's clear. Thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for correcting three or four of them for me. I've fixed another three. All mopped up now, I hope. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Thank you for helping with the project. We are always in need for more reviewers. Keep up the good work. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your merger of Pinkie Pie was a bad merge as she's the central subject of an academic philosophy paper. Unfortunately another user who claims to be unwilling to accept reliable sourcing policy deleted this source, just before you looked at the article and merged it. In future, a quick look at the history of the article can indicate if this behaviour by a third user is occurring. As your merge was a good faith one, but not optimal for the encyclopaedia as the subject of that merge has independent coverage, I've reverted the merge. Yours with thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An academic paper would be considered a reliable third party source, however, in order to establish the subject's notability additional would be needed. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You redirected threefive templates today (as far as I know), claiming that they were "deprecated" or "merged". They were not. If you have any problems with templates, take them to WP:TFD. In addition, there is a special template that needs to be used if a template is really deprecated, Template:Deprecated template. This is not the first time that you have taken unilateral steps resulting in the disturbance of templates. Please be aware that the next time will get you posted at WP:ANI. Debresser (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was merge the -section templates into the main template. I added a |section parameter to each of the main templates and redirected the -section template. I then updated the documentation, and corrected the translusions. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 23:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commendable, but undiscussed. And this might not be the way to do this. These templates are in active use for a reason. I am sure of your good intentions, but there is a place to discuss this kind of thing: WP:TFD. Debresser (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TfD is for the deletion of templates. These templates do not need to be deleted. I thought the easiest way to depreciate the section templates would be just turning them into redirects. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 23:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should know that "Tfd" stands for "Templates for discussion". We regularly discuss merges etc. When have you last read the WP:TFD page? Over 2 years ago? Debresser (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there, haven't talked in a while. I've downloaded the STiki software on a different computer, but I can't remember how to get it out of the compressed zip folder. If you could help me, I would be grateful. Merry Christmas Eve Eve Eve Eve, and Warm Regards, Belugaboy^{cup of tea?} 15:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Microsoft article explains how to unzip a zip file on windows. When you open a zip folder, there is an extract button on the left side. The simplest way to extract a zipped file is to simply drag and drop it onto the desktop. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've done that. However, when I attempt to open the .jar file (sorry to keep bothering you with this) it asks me which program I should use to open it, and it gives me a choice of searching the Internet or choosing from a list of my installed programs. Which should I choose and what should I do? (Forgive me, I probably sound like a complete nincompoop right now.) Merry Christmas Eve Eve... whatever I said before. :-) Belugaboy^{cup of tea?} 23:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STiki is written in the java programming lanugage. If your computer is giving you that message, it means that you do not have java installed. You can download it from http://java.com/en/ Merry Christmas, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 00:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as if I'm losing my mind... can you tell me the link which describes how one can box up and organise one's barnstar awards? For the user page, you see. Thank you and Season's Greetings. Djathinkimacowboy 19:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the simplest way to organize the barnstars would be with a table. If you click on the "advanced" tab on the editing toolbar, there is a table creation wizard tool that may help you. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{cot|say something here}} and {{cob}} should do the trick. One at the top, t'other at the foot. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfelt Cheers to you both. Season's Greetings. Djathinkimacowboy 00:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! What's up? I've seen you requested speedy deletion of your userpage, what happened to you? Petrb (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem. I am just purging the old obsolete revisions. I used to use a different template for the page. As I had that deleted, the old revisions are broken and will not display well. I have no use for the revisions, so I requested speedy deletion. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 03:49, 19 December 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects ‎ (Updating submission status: accepting 71 requests)

...

• 03:49, 19 December 2011 N Wayne Molloy ‎ (Created via Articles for Creation (you can help!))

What did you use to make 149 edits in less than one minute?

-- PBS (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used the Articles for Creation helper script. It allows a reviewer to review all active requests on Articles for Creation/Redirects at once. Once you have selected accept/decline, the script performs the action. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I see you deleted my edit to gorrillawarefare's talk page. I was unsure of the basis for this decision and wanted to clarify a few things.

I got to the user's talkpage through an old reddit submission and I just wanted to congratulate the user. I do not know if this counts as spam, but judging by a similar conversation by a user that is in her talk page archives, I assume it is not.

I said the same thing on the other guy's talk page who changed the editing permissions as well.

Just wanted to let you know.

Cheers and have a happy holiday,

-65.9.89.77 (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your comment because of issues in the recent past. You may well have had good intentions, but over the course of the past two weeks, there have been a number of "congratulations" comments by IPs. These comments have often turned out to be simple trolling. There have been two recent occasions were the page has been mass spammed after one seemingly innocent congratulation made by an IP editor. In order to curb it this time around, I simply removed the comment. If this was a genuine congratulations, I apologize. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 23:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you converted (twice) an entire article ("Alice") from DMY dates to MDY? The article is properly tagged with {{Use dmy dates}} and is done as such because of Avril Lavigne's strong national ties to Canada, which uses the DMY date format in compliance with WP:MOSNUM. I may just be assuming here and am completely wrong, but I see you perform hundreds of edits in a short period of time; if you are using a script which in turn uses Ohconfucius's script please bear in mind that a mass conversion of all articles to MDY without regard to its current format is not appropriate. The date conversion portion of this script is meant to make all dates consistent on the same page, not throughout Wikipedia. Please add a check that an article is not already using one date format before converting it to another (as bots are supposed to do by checking Category:Use dmy dates). If your edit is simply questioning the rationale for the article using DMY dates in the first place, please start a discussion on the article's talk page. Thank you. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not "perform hundreds of edits in a short period of time". I am currently working on clearing Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup from August 2011. I run Reflinks to fix the references, AutoEd to fix whitespace, and then the date script to fix the dating as Reflinks uses dash format for dating (i.e. 2011-22-12). This is a semi-automated process. I am looking over each edit and making sure there are no mistakes. There is no single style on the Alice article. It is using both dmy and mdy format, so I standardized it. Had I seen the dmy tag I would have used that style, but I missed the dmy tag on that particular article. I don't care one way or another which style is used on a particular article. Unless I see a clear particular date style, I default to mdy. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 00:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the "language". As I said, I was only assuming and didn't look thoroughly at your contributions, only your most recent, which looked like a heavy amount of edits (possibly in the hundreds). However, I still suggest that your automation process take into account which format is already on the page (by looking for either the category or the template) and then define all dates according to that in order to avoid things like this in the future. Thanks for the quick response and understanding. =) ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll make sure I am more thorough in checking for an existing date format template. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 00:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alpha Quadrant. This is a response in regards to my request for a Slovenian Roman Catholic saints category. You said: "It seems unlikely that there are enough pages to support this category. Could you show that there are a number of pages that belong to this category?"

In addition to Hemma of Gurk, Maximilian of Lorch, and Modestus (Apostle of Carantania), there is also Vergilius of Salzburg, Rupert of Salzburg, Severinus of Noricum, Anton Martin Slomsek, and Lojze Grozde. --ChristianHistory (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the issues is that this is a proposed subcategory of Category:Slovenian saints, which does not exist either. Before we can establish that a subcategory is needed, we would need to create Category:Slovenian saints and add articles to the category. If we have a sufficient number of articles (typically more than 50), then a subcategory may be warranted. If you would like, I could create Category:Slovenian saints and help you find possible articles to add to the category. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 14:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a category of Category:Slovenian saints would be fine. I also propose a category for Category:Slovak saints, which would include Andrew Zorard, Benedict of Szkalka, Bystrík, Marko Krizin, Maurus of Nitra, Pavol Peter Gojdič, Zdenka Cecília Schelingová, Basil Hopko, and a couple other pages that I'm working on translating and adding to Wikipedia. --ChristianHistory (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm also trying to come up with a category for saints who were missionaries. There are literally hundreds of articles on Irish, English, Welsh, etc. missionary saints that should be put under a missionary category distinct from non-sainted missionaries (of which there are also hundreds). I was initially thinking of a new category called Category:Missionary saints. Then I saw there is an already existing category of Category:Roman Catholic missionaries. However, that category already has over 300 articles, most of whom are not saints, but are priests from the 1500-1900's. So I was thinking that instead of a new category called Category:Missionary saints -- a sub-category could be made under Category:Roman Catholic missionaries called Category:Roman Catholic saints who were missionaries. That sub-category would include your St. Patrick's, your St. Augustine of Canterbury's, your St. Willibrord's, their companions, the Seven Founder Saints of Brittany, the Twelve Apostles of Ireland, as well as the hundreds of Irish/English/Welsh/Scottish missionary saint stubs. They all belong under a common missionary saint category. What do you think? --ChristianHistory (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a little time thinking about this. All Christians could arguably be considered saints, so I am not sure how redundant it would be to Category:Christian missionaries. As creating this category would be changing over 100 articles, it might be a good idea to ask at WikiProject Christianity and see what they think. Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if some people do believe in a "sainthood of all believers", such as Mormons, who consider themselves saints, it is undeniable that in Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, etc. there is a distinction between a regular Christian and a particularly holy Christian, and the latter are given the title of 'saint' to distinguish them from "ordinary" Christians. Dozens of other categories (such as all the ones dealing with Christian saints) reflect this. There would be no redundancy whatsoever between a "Catholic Missionaries" category (which contains people not canonized as saints) and a "Catholic Missionaries Who Were Saints" category which contains canonized missionaries. I will submit this to WikiProject though, thank you. --ChristianHistory (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you assist me with something that makes me feel about as smart as a bag of hammers? How do I add something that allows people to see next to my signature my email and contribs? I can't find any assist with that to save my worthless life. Many thanks. Djathinkimacowboy 23:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Left this on my talk pp, but decided to haul it over here so as not to confuse you with all the other posts appearing on my talk in the last 24 hours. Hope you can help. Djathinkimacowboy 22:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can create a link to your email by adding Special:EmailUser/Djathinkimacowboy to your signature in Special:Preferences. For a link to your contributions, you can use Special:Contribs/Djathinkimacowboy and add that to your signature in preferences. It might be difficult to do that though, as you would probably hit the 250 character limit before then. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right, the limit! I'd forgot. Pretty sure there's no way I could do all this if I want to keep my signatuer as-is! Sorry. Cheers anyway. Djathinkimacowboy 01:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted all my garbage. I wanted to seek your counsel about a matter that is only irritating me, and wondered if you'd be open to discussion. No involvement officially, just wanted to smooth my frayed nerves. Also, to show off my new (pathetically modified) signature. Please respond on my talk. It is about an article but I will keep it all anonymous except the detail at issue. No names, editors or anything else.Djathinkimacowboy^(yell) 09:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Djathinkimacowboy's talk page.

Hi, I noticed that you declined the category request for Missionary Saints as seen here when there was a comment saying 'Please do not close this until the discussion has concluded.' and I believe the discussion however is NOT concluded. You also denied it as it was not request for a category, though infact it was.

Cheers, JDOG555^Talk 00:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you notified the wrong user. I added the comment requesting that the discussion be kept open, but I did not decline it. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did I? Sorry about that. Cheers, JDOG555^Talk 01:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You have flaged File:The10Commandments.png and commons:File:The10Commandments.png for deletion, and so was File:10 Commandments - Hebrew.png flagged.

But notice that there seems to be a valid license for the image at commons:File:Asereth_Haddibberoth.png.

I'm not active anymore in wikimedia projects, do I'd appreciate it if you'd see if you could clean up this mess. אני ואתה (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are three images:

• File:Asereth Haddibberoth.png, uploaded 13:50, 13 April 2007 by Pinqo (talk · contribs).
• File:The10Commandments.png, uploaded 12:23, 11 April 2010 by אני ואתה (talk · contribs).
• File:10 Commandments - Hebrew.png, uploaded 20:14, April 26, 2007 by Epson291 (talk · contribs), citing an external source

I tagged it for deletion, because there was no evidence of permission on the latter image. It appeared that the latter image was the original. On my first look through I had not seen File:Asereth Haddibberoth.png. Now that you pointed out the existence of that image, it appears that File:Asereth Haddibberoth.png is the original and the source cited on File:10 Commandments - Hebrew.png was added much later. I have removed the deletion tags. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alpha Quadrant. You have new messages at Fma12's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manju Qamar - you've now relisted this three times. Deletion policy is maximum of two relistings. Let it run for another week, I guess, but might a no consensus close have done the job here? Either bugging an admin to do it or just closing it as a non-admin. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your favourite Vulcan is Vorik from VOYAGER, featured in the 3rd season. I have just seen his episodes. May your New Year see peace and long life.Djathinkimacowboy^(yell)

Whacking with a wet trout or trouting is a common practice on Wikipedia when experienced editors slip up and make a silly mistake. It, along with sentencing to the village stocks, is used to resolve one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior amongst normally constructive community members, as opposed to long term patterns of disruptive edits, which earn warnings and blocks.

Whack!