User talk:Mrzaius/Archive2

Jeremy Nell and related articles

I notice you tagged the Ditwits article previously. I have nominated it and two other related articles for deletion - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeremy_Nell. I would appreciate your opinion. rrcatto (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Superhero!

why did you you removed speedy the article have not change for the one which was afd before the movie WP:NF by far no improvements to the article just the date no cast info in offical website no nothring. tell me one thing or one souce thats make the article good to keep on here if there not it should go and come back when it haves more infoOo7565 20:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I was quite plain in my edit summary - another established user had already objected to prod. AfD seemed warranted, but CSD certainly did not. There was nothing incorrect about the article as I left it. Still, no great harm was done by its deletion. MrZaius^talk 04:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

i am sorry i was just saying that the article had already been up for afd and then article deleted so speedy was corrected added thats all i was saying if you thopught of anything else i am sorry.Oo7565 16:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Re reverting Template:Infobox Country

Hi again Sean,

Reverted edit

Thanks for your quick action and clue to what I'd overlooked in your post above. I returned to the sandbox and made a couple of corrections; hopefully Infobox Country as intended is now working. Yours, David Kernow (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

All we have now is a the end of an HTML comment, --> ... Is there one that's closed twice?

Seems likely... In which article/s are you seeing it?  Thanks, David (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

United States again. It's still up as of this writing. Also confirmed presence in India, Belgium, United Kingdom, but not Rwanda. Hopefully that'll help hunt it down.

Thanks; I'm hoping it will. I've just been testing the United States instance and the problem doesn't seem to be directly related to the previous oversight, so I've reverted the template again and will go hunting. So much for progress, David (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you got it! Tested and saw no obvious errors on...

I think so...!  While checking, I also spotted what appeared to be a missing pipe-symbol within the time zone processing (courtesy of the United States instance again) so hope to've rectified that too. Time now for something completely different (unless you've found a non-compliant article...)  Thanks again for your help, David (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

United States

The article about the United States is most likely too long already. I am concerned that we should be brief. I thought that stating that this applied until the American Revolution implied it was the British. In the context of settlement, 150 acceptance of convicts is most significant. If you think it needs expanding, please help by expnading. What do you think? I just read the comment about "which colonies". Again I think it is a pertinent comment, but we must maintain brevity. This fact is most relevant in the context of European settlement, but I don't think we should put down the whole history of convict settlemnts here. The statement has been in place for many months. Alan Davidson 15:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I must have been distracted when typing. There were tens of thousands of convicts. The "150" was supposed to be 150 years (1620s to 1770s). I will need to do some research, because if as you suggest there were more convicts from other nations, that too should be included. I am only aware of the thousands from Britain. I should add that I wanted to be brief hence only 14 words. I think in 14 words it makes the point. Alan Davidson 15:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Income & class merge

Hi. As you probably know I think the Income and Class sections are of the outmost importance to the US article. But seeing it as we are trying to prune down the number of sections and that either section only consitutes one short pragraph, merging them might be a possiblity. I don't really like to see income section merged into the econ-section lead, but would rather see the income and class sections merged - if they have to. Let me know what you think, Signature^brendel 17:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Great job on improving the article and nominating it for FA! Signature^brendel 17:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Look good. Thx. Signature^brendel 18:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Any time! MrZaius^talk 18:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

tip on Wibberley site

Thanks for the tip. I'll see what I can do. I still have to log 25 books by this author, with full bibliog. ref. Then I'll reconsider the descriptors for grouping, and see if I can do a Tufte for cross classifications. Btw: when this site was vandalized & Paul caught it, he missed the false middle name, "Francis", which I rectified. But I notice that the mischief infected two other web sites, which look to Wiki: e.g. Fantastic Fiction http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/w/leonard-wibberley/

Know of any way we can undo this harm?Alethe 14:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Google Answers#See also

Hi Mrzaius,

To be honest, I wasn't paying close attention and thought those were external links. I still disagree about including them, but not strongly enough to argue about it. If you're familiar with WP:NOT#DIR (and your long edit history suggests you surely are, probably more than me) and really believe that this directory of alternates belongs there, I'll move on to something else.

FYI, the site www.uclue.com doesn't have an article, so isn't included. It is another alternate run by a lot of the old GA researchers. It had an external link, which was rightly taken out by someone a while ago. I sort of know, peripherally, some of the people involved, so I can't really write anything without violating WP:COI, but IMHO if the other services "deserve" articles, Uclue does too. Something for you to think about when you're bored. --barneca (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It actually would be a good idea to fork the those links into a meta article discussing common themes in all of those sites, including Uclue, if WP:NOTE can be demonstrated for it & an article created. For now, however, the Google Answers page is the closest thing we have to a meta-level article on the phenomena, with most of the other sites either explicitly mimicking parts of it or having been explicitly created as replacements for it. Hopefully I'll get around to it over the weekend. Thanks for getting me thinking about it, MrZaius^talk 14:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Check out the virtual markets section in Knowledge market. MrZaius^talk 16:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed and edited the section in Knowledge market; see what you think. Overall, your changes to the organization of Google Answers in the last 2 days has been a vast improvement. Well done. The GA article could still do with an overall copyedit review (tense consistency, occasional slightly cheerleading tone, facts to be sourced, tagged, or deleted,etc.), which (unless you really want to do it) I will attempt myself in the next day or two.

Time tracking

Thanks for the explanation on Time Tracking Comparison page, it was very helpful and insightful. Take care.

United States FAC

It's way past my bed time. I will check in the next few days. But, just remember, i didn't mean simply fix the specific sentences, etc that I mentioned, but I merely used them as examples. You (or others to help you) need to go thru the whole article.

Just remember, FAC is tough, particularly with countries (it has to be), and I think the US process has quite a way to go yet. So don't give in easily, keep calm, civil, and in a positive mind frame. The most important thing to remember, is that you are close to the article and it may seem perfect to you, but the article is there for the benefit of fresh readers. I feel qualified to say this as I've just been through the FAC wringer with Indonesia. happy editing. Merbabu 14:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Alethe query re mulltivariates

DrZaius,

to use your preferred name.

I've gotten the Wibberley page in basically good shape now, tho' his last 20 publications (acc. to LA Times) are proving a challenge, esp. since his Calif. family hasn't replied to recent queries (maybe absorbed writing 'Dream of Jeannie' movie).

This an excellent case for multivariate cross classification, since data are many, & author very versatile. What I'd like to do is to cross-classify with some kind of perspicuous & attractive notations, which would please even Tufte. Presently we have the 3 conventional descriptors: dates, publishers, gen'l classifications. Clear, relevant other classifiers are: sea, biography, religious, historical, political, scifi, truly for children, boy hero (a la Stevenson, his inspiration).

Can you think of a way of introducing other colors, or little icons to show these things? (I have made a graph for a fn, which shows something of history of postwar publishing. How may I show you this? I have a Mac, but failed to dragndrop to this page.)

Would be most appreciative if, with yr greatly superior computer knowlege plus Wiki experience, you c'd advise. I think this could be a paradigm page.

Alethe 19:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

multivariant graphics

DrZaius, note how yr introduction of a grid, if left only on that category, accomplishes i) setting it apart, ii) making its content so clear that one could dispense with its heading.

However, what I seek are Wiki-possible ways (e.g. coloring, adding small symbols to line--rather like colored bullets--the way asterisks are often used) that I don't see on the bar above, for coding entries for several variables. Even in yr grid, we have only 3 variables: overall category, publisher, year. I'd like (deftly) to code also some pertinent descriptors:

of the sea/not religious/not mainly for boys/not* short, novella length/long in print/not comic/not historical/not biography/not fictional/not

Note that the Jefferson series is fictional, but also biographical and historical, not of sea, not religious, not aimed at boys...

In addn, I've already done a colored histogram of W's publishing career. Is there a way I could send you that file?

Thanks for interest & help Alethe 20:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

PS, re Wibberley page query...

Of course political satire/not, scifi/not scifi, or fantasy/non are important markers, since bookstores stock some of his books and websites such as www.fantasticfiction.co.uk lists some--plus Wiki's own Boolean scifi-writers-who-are-catholic.

Re the [*] in my previous message, 'juvenile' was a label given lots of books because libraries automatically order them. Alethe 22:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Various 12-step group articles

Thank you for stubbing the articles I recreated. They do organizations easy pass WP:NOTE in terms of the amount of information published on them by secondary sources, as I noted here. You are correct, however, that the articles themselves do need a lot of work. — Craigtalbert 08:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will leave (put back) the notability templates (if you haven't all ready). I just finished a re-write of the Emotions Anonymous article a few days ago. I know the information is out there for the rest of the groups, I'm just a little tired of doing research/writing at the moment. — Craigtalbert 09:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Scollref

Hi,

For scrollref, you might be interested in Wikipedia:Template test cases. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I sandboxed it in my userspace - Did you spot an error I didn't, aside from the stylistic issues of to subst or not to subst? MrZaius^talk 11:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not spotted an error. IMHO, I believe not subst'ing is better, so that if either reflist or scroll box changes, it only needs to be changed at one place. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The original intend of multiple column is to eliminate some white space. Now with the scroll box, I see little need to support multiple column in scroll box. What do you think? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. I can see the benefit to a columnless approach in terms of readability, but I can also see the benefit to a more compact 2-3 column approach. Somewhat torn, MrZaius^talk 11:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved for future reference/inclusivity to template talk:scrollref

Microsoft MIX

If you want to merge the article somewhere, go ahead and do it. Just keep the redirect so that a link does not show as red. --soum ^talk 11:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Threw the tag up because I wasn't one hundred percent sure that it was relevant to MSDN, if not notable enough to warrant seperate coverage. Investigating and trying to find out what specific arm of the corp is hosting MIX. MrZaius^talk 11:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Moving Pages

Doesn't matter in the case of very new pages, but, just in case you weren't aware, there are procedures in place to move an article over a preexisting redirect without losing the edit history. Flag the redirect with template:db-redirect to get it deleted, and then you'll be generally be able to move the other page over it within 12-24 hours, depending on how backed up the WP:CSD queue is. MrZaiustalk 07:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know about it. Thank you for hipping me to the information. — Craigtalbert 08:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

XD

So I found you randomly while scrolling around, and...

 Americans who avoid fast food for more than a month at a go risk permanent paralysis.

Seriously?! o_0 I've been avoiding McDonald's so I can have as much In-N-Out Burger when I want when I go back to Cali this summer, but...

• coughIdon'treallybelieveyoucough* Øřêōş 00:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

categories for Leonard Wibberley article

Apologies for my somewhat dense reply to yr grid suggestion. Yes, I do see how more cells could be added to ranks, providing the cross classifications I seek. I'll try it. What I was looking for was something more visually attractive, done in terms of colors or little logos.

The USC library classification of ms etc. given them by Wibberley family now provides something like completeness, plus another basic classification, so I'll have to take that into consideration.

Thanks again for your help improving this article. Alethe 11:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

linkfarm RfC

Hello Mrzaius. I see that User:Timeshifter is causing troubles again at Talk:Comparison of time tracking software. Sigh, I thought this had all been resolved, guess not. You may wish to add a comment at Talk:List of mind mapping software#Request for Comment: List of mind mapping software. This linkfarm RfC will likely be a precedent on linkfarming. (Requestion 19:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC))

Page size

Here's the code I added to monobook.js:

// Script from [[User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js]]
importScript('User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js'); //[[User:Omegatron/monobook.js/addlink.js]]
// Script from [[User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js]]
importScript('User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js'); //[[User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js]]

It adds a 'Page size' option to the toolbox when you're in mainspace. CloudNine 18:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Waldheim

The trivia was removed because it was either unsourced or original research. Restoring trivia without solving the problem isn't constructive. Can you provide sources for the trivia you've restored? Rklawton 15:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on it, but a large chunk of it, the references in popular media & the Paul McCartney and time capsule references, are not at all controversial. I don't believe most of them required citation, under my reading of WP:CITE, but I'll see what I can dig up. Give it 24 hours. MrZaius^talk 15:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

PS, thanks for the citewebs. Feeling a little rushed, hence the barebone citations I'm dropping in. MrZaius^talk 15:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Valete

Other articles have the last fm link. There are no other sources available, and the Myspace page is from Valete himself. I think the source should be accepted if its from the person the article is about. Thanks --Iluvlipstick 17:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If any article uses last.fm in an in-article citation, they are almost certainly in the wrong, as it is in no way a verifiable source. That said, the main reason I struck the external link was that it was non-English and a commercial third party. The one or the other objection might be weak on their own, but together, *shrug* That said, there are some verifiable, published sources discussed in the Articles for Deletion debate that you may be able to translate portions of and use quotes from it to replace the parts of the article that have an unencyclopedic tone, and to remove the blogspot source. MrZaius^talk 17:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valete:

I don't know how to use quotes as references, but I'll try. I've also found another article about him from the magazine Visão transcribed in this site. In the introduction it says he “jumped from the underground hip hop to the radio playlists”. Cattus ^talk 17:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It should be possible to translate a one or two sentence quote and simply include it in the article using blockquote, or even to include a smaller translated quote in the article text proper. Given the quote, just cite the quote like you would anything else, but word it <ref>"Translated from.... rest of source, date, access time, etc".</ref> MrZaius^talk 18:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Cattus ^talk 18:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well done on the Peter Lyman article

		The Original Barnstar
		Well done for your work on the Peter Lyman article. Capitalistroadster 09:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Robert Frenay

With all due respect and at the risk of being a pest, I'm curious why you are so eager to have the article about Robert Frenay deleted. If I can quote parts of the the wikipedia guideline,

"Ideal stub article

See also: Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles.

Any registered editor may start a stub article.

When you write a stub, bear in mind that it should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it.. . . Begin by defining or describing your topic. Avoid fallacies of definition. Write clearly and informatively. State, for example, what a person is famous for,. . . Once you create and save the article, other editors will also be able to enhance it."

I don't see how the article I've written isn't exactly what's described above. I probably should have added the stub template, but I didn't know that. One of the complaints on the Afd discussion was the lack of references or citations that don't rely on Frenay's website, his book or reviews of his book. Honestly, I've found it very difficult to find facts about Frenay's life so I haven't been able to find many references but I'm continuing to look. I don't see how that impoverishes his ideas or make them or the thinker of them less notable.

It almost seems like you're convinced that the author of the article is just trying to sell books. I'm not. And actually neither is Robert Frenay. His book can be read for free online. I'm just interested in his ideas and think his writing is profound and his biography is notable for those reasons.--Markisgreen 04:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I just saw your suggestions on the talk page for the article. I guess I misunderstood your objectives. Thank you very much for the help.--Markisgreen 04:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup - If I were hell bent on seeing it deleted, I wouldn't be digging for new references. My problem was that the sources before your edits of this evening, which, by the way, I thought were quite positive, was that the only third party source was rather weak. Given a more adequately sourced article, I'd pop off the note and ref tags in a heart beat. Note that all that I did after the AfD was repeat that comment and flag the article with cleanup templates aimed at building a stronger case for note and stronger references section. Remember to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, but it looks like you already spotted the above. Thanks, MrZaius^talk 04:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Freenode

Hi there. I noticed your revert of an edit I made to the Freenode article. I removed the details primarily because they were unsourced, which is reason enough for their removal. While I also think they're unnecessary, the detail of him not wearing a helmet could imply that his death was his fault, which isn't really an appropriate assertion to make without verifiable sources. Please let me know. Thanks!   user:justen    talk   06:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't so much a matter of fault in my mind as it was completeness - Hard to imagine a cyclist reading that he died of head injuries and not wondering whether or not he was wearing a helmet. That said, the most authoritative source I've been able to find thus far was the IRC log where the death was announced. Barring the availability of better sources or the availability of the same log from freenode itself, it might not hurt to trim things down a fair bit. Taking another look - MrZaius^talk 15:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No dice - Strangely enough, I can't find any major media coverage, unless you count wikinews. Apparently his paper, http://cron.com, only posts 30 days of obits and 6 months of news. That isn't helping much. Reverted to your edit, although I believe the information should be restored if a stronger source becomes available for the same reason stated above. MrZaius^talk 16:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I did spend a bit of time looking for better source material myself, without much luck. I'll take another crack at trying to find an official obituary or other mention.   user:justen    talk   16:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Gray knight

If you think I've been harsh with this, and wish to recreate, the text is here If this is asserted as notable, presumably from the spelling it needs to be made clear that it's in a US setting? Jimfbleak 05:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Just out of interest, you commented on the content of my talk page. I replied to all the queries, even the abusive ones, and you should note that very few of the articles have been recreated (Acen Ravzi was a special case, where an edit war was raging). I spend a lot of time on new page/csd patrol, so I'm bound to get queries from people who don't understand why their adverts/neologisms/textdumps etc are deleted. I sometimes get it wrong, but I do my best.

In the case of Gray knight, your tags attracted my attention -wouldn't it have been better to add a reference to assert notability? Jimfbleak 05:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Acknowledged - just wanted to make sure it was said, given that the grey knight page was deleted so quickly after the move. Didn't really have a chance to look for grounds to assert note. Spent time enough on the CsD patrol, albeit not as an admin, to know what you're talking about, but to also see a fair number improve rather dramatically in the first 10-20 minutes - Just thought I'd drop in a friendly reminder. That said, I now believe it'd be better to deal with the topic and the hopefully deleted black knight context-less page in the White knight article. Thanks for the original text, MrZaius^talk 12:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

With regards to my RfA

Hello! I hope you are feeling great. I would like to clarify something with you. In my RfA, you chose to oppose my nomination in the neutral section. Is it an oppose or neutral comment? --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - I had initially intended a neutral post. Would correct that rather than move it, if you like, if you acknowledge that more than just a sheer number of Google hits is required to demonstrate notability/the availability of adequate sources. Pointing to a handful of individual pages rather than just to the Google search in the links posted by the user I referenced would have probably resulted in a support - don't remember seeing anything negative from you aside from those somewhat minor posts. They just seemed to conflict with your stated goals/reason to RfA. Per my most recent edit summary, will up to neutral if you reread Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions. Easy to forget a point, and I suppose it's possible you have some reason to disagree with the WP:GOOGLEHITS section of it, although I do not. MrZaius^{<;font color="Blue">talk} 02:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion comments: NOPEC

I'm disappointed with your comments on the deletion page for NOPEC:

Neologism with no evidence of use after ~8 months. Note that there was also a US Senate bill by the same name, but that appears to be unrelated.

As the examples I gave show, it is not an especially new term. You are correct that it is not connected to the US Senate Bill. It is an industry jargon term that denotes the set of non-OPEC oil exporting countries. Here are some examples of the use of the term in the industry.

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/mckillop021807.html

"CAN OPEC AND NOPEC STOP THE OIL PRICE SLIDE ?"

(It is clear from the context of the article that NOPEC means the non-OPEC oil exporting countries.)

http://www.petroleumworld.com/sati07032401.htm

"Continued and sustained oil demand growth inside OPEC and NOPEC exporter countries, specially Russia, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iran, Kuwait, Venezuela, Mexico, Algeria combined with physical depletion and erosion of oil production capacities in the majority of these countries, ensures a tight supply context. "

www.clingendael.nl/publications/2004/20041100_ciep_vanderlinden.pdf

"It is generally assumed that world energy demand will grow, that import dependence grows, that there will be a growing competition among major net-importing coutnries and that the number of net-exporting countries will decline due to a relative shift in balance between OPEC-NOPEC producers."

http://www.sav.sk/journals/ekoncas/ekon203.htm

"Even though the high oil prices after two oil shocks raised oil revenues in OPEC member countries, they also gave rise to start the production in non-OPEC (NOPEC) countries."

Ordinary Person 10:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Even had that been in the article, which it wasn't, there wasn't any real content beyond a simple definition that might have been a better candidate for the Wiktionary or simple cursory coverage in OPEC. That said, I never saw any sources unrelated to the seperate senate bill - sorry if I somehow overlooked a post with the above, as that would have led me to transwiki and/or merge rather than nominate for deletion. Note that the article was left in place for a goodly chunk of time waiting for references and a clear assertion of the subject's notability. MrZaius^talk 15:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that the article was left in place for a goodly chunk of time waiting for references and a clear assertion of the subject's notability. Yes, I should have dealt with this problem earlier. I apologise. Ordinary Person 23:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothin' personal of course - I remmeber digging around a fair bit, trying to find sources, but finding nothing reliable that wasn't a reference to the Senate bill. MrZaius^talk 23:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivia/Albion, Illinois

Still kind of new to Wikipedia. I feel the Trivia part on Albion needs removed, especially the comments on Bruce Mendenhall and put into a different article. I could be wrong. Would like to share ideas and learn some things more about Wikipedia. I live in Edwards County and wanting to learn how to do Wikipedia articles right. I have done articles on Post Mark Collector's Club, West Salem, Illinois, Bone Gap, Illinois to name a few. Thank you MrZaius!! 7-15 schaser1

Actually, someone's already created a stub for Bruce Mendenhall. Since he's pretty one of only three people linked to the Albion article, and the only part of the trivia section that can be backed up with sources, that warrants preservation in a Notable residents style section. Spooked a little bit - I kinda think I saw that guy back in college, when I was working at the Shell truck stop in Grayville, Illinois. MrZaius^talk 21:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted ERD (disambiguation) entry

Why did you delete my addition to the ERD disambiguation page?

199.250.32.249 18:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)David Goldsmith, ERD/ORR/NOS/NOAA, July 16, 2007

Disambiguation pages exist to list articles with potential name collisions, not to collect external links. A page on NOAA's ERD would probably survive if created, and then could be linked to on the disambig page. MrZaius^talk 18:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

But the Emergency Response Division already has its own well-developed pages, so a link should be sufficient (a full-fledged article would be redundant, and subject to becoming out-of-date, whereas ERD's pages are maintained), but an article simply for "wrapping" such a link seems like a waste of wikipedia resources.

Acknowledged, but we still discourage external links on disambiguation pages, as, again, they exist to explain or work through article name collisions, not to cover yet-uncovered topics. That said, "a full-fledged article would be redundant" by your standard for nearly every topic here, as strong reliable sources are required of any article to demonstrate Wikipedia:Notability.

If you believe your organization meets our standards for note, there's very little reason not to cover it. An article here takes, at most some 300K of space, images included. Normal articles take well under 100K, so don't be concerned about using WikiMedias resources on a per-page basis. On your final point, an article to wrap to one link would be inappropriate, but the link doesn't warrant mention on the wiki without coverage of the topic at hand, unless it's used as a source on some other article - here's a guide . Please see WP:EL for our external links policies and WP:DISAMBIG for our disambiguation policies if you have any further questions. MrZaius^talk 21:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Scrollboxes and references

Thanks, I never knew this before when I saw it at another place being used on the template for it. Just seemed like a nice thing to use for the United States article (maybe a <--> note should be put on there for future situations that others may do later?). Kinda wonder why like other websites have to make a link to have certain articles within it a button to bring to a printable page (if that's something possible to be done on here). I'm sure something is in the works though, since what was done for lots of references was great at that time. That-Vela-Fella 06:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

We actually already have it, but unfortunately the scrollbox still renders on it and, more importantly, sticks around even when you hit the print button, resulting in missing information from the printable version of a page. Check out the "Print this page link" on a sandboxed article and try to reproduce it - There's a slim chance it's been fixed, but I don't think anyone ever did. MrZaius^talk 18:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Measuring article length

Hi, Mr. Zauis - I have done a lot of work on the Democractic Party article and added quite few refs. I wanted to measure the length of article prose, excluding the refs I added, but don't know how. I'd appreciate your help. Regards, Signature^brendel 23:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link and your quick response as well as the suggestions on my new article which I have adopted. Happy editing, Signature^brendel 19:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Osage Plains

Hi Mrzaius -

Please don't keep reverting the stub on Osage Plains. It's standard stub-sorting practice to list individual state-geo-stubs if there are fewer than five states dealt with in an article. US-geo-stub is reserved for things which cover very large parts oif the country and large numbers of states (like Sun Belt). Grutness...wha? 01:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There are five. Btw, the word is spelled "of". Please see my comment on Talk:Osage Plains. MrZaius^talk 01:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Then there should be five categories, not just three, and some mention of the other two states somewhere in the text. And it's not consideredf cool to make fun of someone's arthritic fingers. Grutness...wha? 01:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It is when you can find much, much more eggregious examples at Special:Contributions/Mrzaius without even going beyond my edit summaries, especially considering my lack of arthritis ;) That said, yes - the other two cats are definitely needed. The article text proper is nowhere near clear enough in its current state - Quite understandable why you'd be going off the cats. Regards, MrZaius^talk 02:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough and yes, where there are categories its easiest to use them to restub, especially when you're going through big batches of stubs at a time. as for the arthritis, it's midwinter here and my fingers become very stiff when I'm typing - roll on spring! Peace, Grutness...wha? 00:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:NoMoreLinks

I think that one should be moderated, as who decides when there are enough links in an article? People should be able to add more links as long as the external links section isn't too big and as long as, of course, they're compliant with WP:EL. I'm not sure the best way to get that template moderated would be a TFD, which would probably be unsuccessful anyway. Yonatan ^talk 14:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff. I'll take a stab at it, but if there's inordinate push back, I don't think a TfD would be too terrible far out of line. MrZaius^talk 15:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Red link cleanup in Software Comparisons

I have done as you suggested on my talk page, and cleaned up two more of the software comparison articles. I will continue looking for more of these to clean up as time permits. Wrldwzrd89 19:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sweet - Thanks! MrZaius^talk 20:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

American diplomatic missions

I notice you renamed the article and reorganised the layout of American diplomatic missions. This was not cool man.

There are 171 other Diplomatic Missions by country articles which follow the same format. If you want to make a change to the entire style, then at least seek consensus first. This takes more than four hours to do! Note that other editors will be loathe to reedit the other articles to fit whatever format you suggest.

I will propose a revert to the last edit by Krokodyl on 19:33, 22 July 2007. Kransky 14:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The move wasn't, admittedly, but the layout was in no way in violation of any of the norms of the wiki. I would strongly oppose the revert to that poorly spaced revision. See talk. MrZaius^talk 18:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

lolcode

Well, sure, lolcode might be "real" just as any other fake programming language might be real that an amused programmer might create in a day. But it's not notable. I shouldn't have complained in my comment that it was fake; I should have complained that it was not notable.

If you believe that lolcode is sufficiently notable to mention on Wikipedia, then consider that the same amused programmer might create Dick-Cheney-Code, Ha-Ha-Guy-Code, 4ChanCode, and another fake programming language for every noun in the English language. Would you think that every one of these fake languages ought to be mentioned in the articles for all those nouns? Tempshill 16:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If it attracted major media coverage, yes. That said, the lolcode article didn't have adequate depth to warrant retention, and I did support a merge. The topic's notable enough to warrant coverage, just not full blown separate coverage. The bar for note is somewhat lower for subtopics. MrZaius^talk 16:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Confederate government of Kentucky

Thank you for your edit to Confederate government of Kentucky. You may or may not be aware that this article is currently at featured article candidate. If you would like to offer comments for improving the article, or if you would like to support or oppose the article's promotion to FA status, please leave your feedback on the nomination page. Thank you. Acdixon 20:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

ConnectKentucky

Thanks for re-creating and properly expanding ConnectKentucky. I tried to expand it at one time before it was deleted but couldn't find appropriate sources. I've nominated this article for DYK. Acdixon 11:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sweet! Thanks, MrZaius^talk 14:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Your request

Sure thing, dear Mrzaius! I've recreated the deleted content at that subpage as you requested; although I'm afraid there's little material there, compared to the excellent article you've written now. Please, let me know if I can ever be of more assitance to you. Have a beautiful day, Phaedriel - 20:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you weren't kiddin' - Thanks anyway, though. I really appreciate getting to take a peek at it. MrZaius^talk 21:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerning User:24.192.16.130

User:24.192.16.130 (talk) is (usually) User:Lockesdonkey, i.e. me, and I have noted such on both the main user and user talk pages. I was editing from another computer in my house (mine was occupied), and the computer I edited from freezes when I log in. Considering that you appear to have checked the rest of the user page before you wrote that message, I would kindly advise you to see if the user page exists and if there's anything on it before doing this again. If I sound annoyed, it's because this has happened several times before...except this time I had a good reason for not editing under my own name. Thank you. Lockesdonkey 20:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No need for annoyance - 99.9% of the time no user page exists on anon users, so while I apologize for the oversight, keep in mind that it was just a welcome template. Feel free to rv. MrZaius^talk 21:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy Theobald

I happen to know the guy, and didn't know until today that he was an actor (just saw Following)! Being an early collaborator with a major Hollywood director, and a leading man in his first feature film is quite notable, no? Jeremy is also quite well known in biomedical publishing. I've fleshed out the page. Fences and windows 01:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite. Thanks for the cleanup! MrZaius^talk 01:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Your editors to lolcats

Please see WP:RS. Blogs are CLEARLY not reliable sources, I have no idea why you think using one as a reference is ok. At the very top of the page, it says clearly Editor's note: P-I Reader Blogs are not written or edited by the P-I. They are written by readers, for readers. The authors are solely responsible for content. - this has NO notability or reliability to it anymore than blogspot, live journal, or myspace. Please be more careful in the future --Lucid 10:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts on the matter were fairly plain. The sources for the etymological makeup of the lolcat captions et al/the only two sources that go into any real depth on the subject are both blogs. That said, I would quibble with your claim that the source has no notability (albeit not the reliability point - will not contest its removal, assuming that was done). The simple fact that it was being syndicated by the site of a major newspaper raises the bar considerably. MrZaius^talk 12:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Welsh rugby clubs

I have started to input pages for as many Welsh WRU affiliated clubs as is humanly possible (for one guy). I have investigated other lesser leagues (such as the FA low tier leagues, as low as level 20 in places) and have found no corresponding requirement for deletion. The Welsh league is a cultural tent peg in the history of Wales and the affiliated clubs who have connections in such bizzare manners as war, aircraft disasters, politics and the such need their place in the world. I think if this was a link to Aztec ball games and their history no one would request their deletion; but as Welsh sports (lets face it THE Welsh sport) we are almost apologetic in its importance. By investigating the history of the sport I have found there are so many gaps created by the people that thought their own clubs were unimportant that they discarded their own history; and now cry for evidence. We need to make this a viable Wikipedia category so we have an anchor in history, because believe me the people who care have no organised movement to store this information; and that includes the WRU. It's reliable, you know that, and as the first person who appears to care about this part of history, reflect all clubs and not just 'their' club and their wacky drinking songs, I'm sure you know it makes sense. Before I started this page WRU National Leagues had only three leagues and apart from the Premier League were all red. Please remove the deletion, I will expand them all in time. Save the lower leagues, Save the world. Let me complete this. If you have a viable reason to delete these pages please give evidence to refute. Thanks.--FruitMonkey 23:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that I only flagged one article for deletion, and, when that was contested, I did not nominate it for AfD. What I am interested in seeing is a more clear case for notability under WP:ORG based on secondary and tertiary sources. The handful of the articles with BBC sources would be decent guides to use when attempting to bring the others up to snuff. Let me know if you'd like a hand, MrZaius^talk 23:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC) PS: When you say "please remove the deletion", I assume you're asking me to remove the cleanup templates. However, being just that, not nominations for deletion, they should remain in place until resolved.

Hi there. I see I'm not the first to raise a query on this topic. You've added a notability tag onto Swansea RFC. I have looked through the guidelines and proposed guidelines for notability listed, and I can see no guidelines about sports teams. Perhaps I am looking in the wrong place? Swansea (the rugby team) has a long history, is a founding member of the WRU, and has defeated national touring sides in the past. I agree that the article needs sources, but I am removing the notability tag. Telsa (talk) 11:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that, its age, and the fact that there are some sources (albeit primary sources - giving it something of a borderline case for note) to back both of those claims up, I'll leave it off, but to future fans that reach this page: the vast majority of these pages lack any attempt at a sourced assertion of notability, and the assumption that their notability is implicit/can be adequately made without citations doesn't float in heathen lands. ;) – MrZaius^talk 14:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being an arse earlier. I just didn't understand notability. Thank you for your mentorship and your cool handling of the topic. I will try to make all my editoring as valid as possible. I get it now; yours, your padwan, Steve. PS hit me for notability as you see fit, it makes me work harder. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FruitMonkey (talk • contribs) 00:36, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Hello, MrZaius. I have just noticed your replies here. If you are going to reply to other people on your own talk page, rather than on theirs, it might be a good idea to put a note on the top of your talk page saying that, so that people know to keep checking back. Thanks for the swift reply anyway, even if I didn't immediately see it! I do see your point about notability. I just have an immensely long list of other articles to provide sources for first... Telsa (talk) 09:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point - Added said template with this edit. Btw, FruitMonkey's doing a pretty decent job of going through and sourcing the articles in question. If you have additional sources available, you might want to work with him. MrZaius^talk 15:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Silly People

It is the right of the free world for them to decide who is silly and who isn't. It cannot be considered vandalism for me to offer people to choice to follow a link to a page where they can express which individuals they feel are silly.

People should be free to edit this page at their own will. It is not the place of you or anyone else to decide who is silly and who isn't. Allow this page to go on and allow the people to decide. Atraxus 23:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Exercising those rather silly rights here is in plain violation of WP:BIAS and WP:OR, hence the nom for deletion and the multiple accusations of vandalism et al. MrZaius^talk 23:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

So who decides what is silly and what isn't? I think you're objections are silly. Atraxus 23:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Joke's over. You're going to get yourself blocked again if you don't cease your disruptive behavior. --ElKevbo 23:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't you have a job or something? Atraxus 23:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"blatant bias inherent in the addition of nearly all members to this cat" Purely out of interest, what do you mean by that? Atraxus 23:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding someone to a category of "silly people" without a reference seems to suggest that the user who added the person to the category of silly people feels that person is a silly person.

To reword in a slightly easier-to-follow fashion, not every person will feel that, say, Robert Mugabe is silly. To add him to that category is to show a bias. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 23:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC) Precisely - MrZaius^talk 00:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

But shouldn't you let it play out through a succession of user edits rather than an administrator decision as is supposed to be the way that wikipedia works? Atraxus 00:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is meant to have citations for things. Having a category for "Silly people" is unencyclopedic. And in this instance, the Wikipedia community is deciding what will happen to that category, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 18#Category:Silly People. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That and because of the long-established and broadly accepted OR and BIAS guidelines/because vandalism and bias=bad. MrZaius^talk 00:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen a category backed up by citations. Atraxus 00:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Usually it's backed up by citations used to reference relevant text in the article. For example, Paris Hilton is in Category:Incarcerated celebrities. This is backed up by numerous citations in her article in this section. It is not the done thing to directly cite categories themselves, if it's even possible. Does that explain things? --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It's miles ahead in terms of an explanation than anything I've heard thus far Atraxus 00:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Newport Rugby Club

Your Citation/reference challenge is fair but please remove your Notability challenge on this page and associated deletion threat. Notability is clearly established in the article and with respect, anyone that knows anything about Rugby Union knows the importance of this club. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pwimageglow (talk • contribs) 13:37:15, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

That's precisely the point, though. Anyone who knows nothing about Welsh Rugby knows nothing of its importance and cannot judge the level of its importance based solely on this text, without the added context and given by the citations. That's why multiple independent sources to back up the assertion of note are necessary. The references and notability issues are one and the same. MrZaius^talk 14:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hope I'm getting better. Drop me hints to how to improve my wikiness when you can see me going wrong. Could you look at Sir Samuel Instone, and tell me if you think its a good page. I'm pleased with it but I need advice. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FruitMonkey (talk • contribs) 21:58, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a good start to me - Seems well sourced. One question - There's a Jewish genealogy book mentioned in the article. If the subject was Jewish, does that warrant discussion in the article? MrZaius^talk 22:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Instone was Jewish, the only notice to the date of his knighthood was via a reference from a synagogue newsletter, and I also found someone who was searching their family tree mention that they could link themselves back to Instone (the airline magnate guy) as originally Einstein. I find this really intersesting, and I let the link stand to allow others to 'get' the link, and follow it. 'Cos lets face it, I have no proof to state he was a Jew, or if born into the faith held up the beliefs. Good call by the way.--FruitMonkey 23:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar. :) utcursch | talk 16:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Lolcode

The histories of Lolcode and LOLCODE have been restored, so you should be able to obtain your desired version of the article yourself. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That works - Just saw the post AfD version of Talk:lolcode, so I didn't think to look for anything prior to the AfD. MrZaius^talk 17:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ericom

Hi.

I am new to Wiki, so please help me understand how to improve my submission. The bottom line is that this company Ericom also provides support for Terminal Services in the same manner as Citrix.

Here are some external links: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/partners/termsrvs.mspx

http://ericom.com/pr_070206.asp

http://ericom.com/pr_250405.asp

http://www.dabcc.com/article.aspx?id=3648

Thanks Pitvipper 20:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that the list of partners is over 20 companies long. We need a clear way to tell whether or not this is important enough to warrant coverage. Might try to see if the company survives coverage in a separate article. Be aware that failure to comply with WP:ORG/WP:CORP, especially with regards to multiple, independent, Wikipedia:Reliable sources will likely result in deletion. If it's notable enough to warrant independent coverage and primarily focused on TS-related goods and services, it's obviously notable enough to cover in the TS article. If not, need at least some press coverage that gives clear context through which to understand why it and citrix, but no other partners, warrant mention in the parent article about the technollogy. MrZaius^talk 20:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance,

Here are the links you are looking for: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2005/apr05/04-25Winx64LaunchPR.mspx

From the link above, Ericom and and Citrix are the only Terminal Services vendors listed.

http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/workplace/library/ericom/index.html?ca=drs-

http://virtualization.sys-con.com/read/409644.htm "Microsoft is excited to enable improved application compatibility and user isolation for Terminal Services customers that require a dedicated OS per user. With software from Ericom, Terminal Services customers have more choice and agility for deploying centralized applications or desktops," said Joshua Schnoll, Sr. Product Manager, Terminal Services. http://www.itjungle.com/fhs/fhs041707-story07.html Ericom is unique among terminal emulation software vendors in that users can access traditional hosts, such as iSeries, mainframes, VMS, and Unix machines, as well as Windows servers from the same product: PowerTerm WebConnect Enterprise. In this respect, Ericom competes with traditional terminal emulation vendors, as well as with Citrix and Microsoft for Windows Terminal Services emulation, which gives it a special place in the market.

http://www.lexdon.com/article/ericom_software_attains_gold_certified/81880.html "Ericom has a long history of bringing solid value to customers by building solutions. They extend the Terminal Services platform to deliver enterprise solutions," said Joshua Schnoll, Senior Product Manager for Terminal Services at Microsoft. "Microsoft is excited to bring our relationship to a new level with Ericom's Gold Certified Partner status." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitvipper (talk • contribs) 20:48, August 28, 2007 (UTC)Pitvipper 20:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, only one of those is an independent source, and it'd be slightly questionable under WP:RELY, given its relative obscurity and the absence of a print format/probably wouldn't stand on its own. The other primary sources and press releases will in no way help make a clear case for the notability of the topic at hand. This is an encyclopedia, not a press release aggregator. MrZaius^talk 20:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

MrZaius, Terminal Services is a Microsoft product. Microsoft lists only Ericom and Citrix as terminal services vendors on their website: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2005/apr05/04-25Winx64LaunchPR.mspx If Citrix is covered in this encyclopedia entry, then Ericom who provides the same functionality and has several strategic partnerships with Microsoft should also be mentioned. Thanks.Pitvipper 21:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

But, again, without independent, verifiable sources, the importance of the firm and its partnership is entirely unclear. That link only mentions Ericom once, and in the most cursory manner possible:

Software partners that have or are in the process of developing applications to support the Windows x64 platform include Adobe, Avid Softimage, BMC Software Inc., Cakewalk, Citrix Systems Inc., CommVault Systems Inc., Computer Associates International Inc., DHI Water and Environment, Ericom Software, IBM Corp., McAfee Inc., NewTek Inc., Oracle Corp., Parametric Technology Corp., Softimage Co., a subsidiary of Avid Technology Inc., Symantec Corp., UGS, and VERITAS Software Corp. Computer manufacturers that will offer hardware running Windows XP Professional x64 Edition and Windows Server 2003 x64 Editions include Acer Inc., Alienware Corp., Dell, Fujitsu Computer Systems Corp., Fujitsu Siemens Computers, Hitachi Ltd., HP, IBM, NEC Corp. and Unisys Corp. Hardware and peripheral vendors that will offer hardware support for Windows XP Professional x64 Edition and Windows Server 2003 X64 Editions include Broadcom, Brother, Canon, Epson, Lexmark Marvell, Neterion, Nvidia, and Ricoh, Samsung, Wacom, Xerox and Zoran.

Even if it had, though, it's still not an independent source and still doesn't really meet the threshold for coverage. Again, press releases and primary sources wouldn't cut it for a separate article, and would be flaky backing for a section covering it in another article as they do not provide adequate context. MrZaius^talk 23:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This entry, Terminal Services, is about a MS product. I sent you at least two links to show that Ericom has a special relationshp with MS in relation to this product, even though Ericom is one of several companies listed above, please keep in mind that Microsoft has tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of partners. The list above contains only two companies with products designed to enhance Terminal Services fucntionality, Citrix and Ericom. If you are looking for an independent source to verify Ericom's product functionality and position in support of MS Terminal Services, then please send me an e-mail address so that I can forward you an analyst report. Thanks.Pitvipper 12:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If the analyst report meets WP:RELY (and do check), then just cite it. Nonetheless, we need multiple independent, reliable sources. MrZaius^talk 20:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are additional reports/articles: http://ericom.com/articles/ButlerGroupAuditPowerTermWebConnect5.5.pdf http://www.healthcareitnews.com/story.cms?id=7517 http://www.dabcc.com/channel.aspx?id=108 Please also note the quote from the Microsoft Senior Product Manager for Terminal Services: http://ericom.com/pr_070206.asp I will edit the entry accordingly.Pitvipper 17:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I edited the "Geico Caveman" entry to include reference to a discussion going on in the Web regarding the ads' comment on Political Correctness. Recently several changes were made to my edit, revising it to be much more biased toward's Geico's view of the ads. The initial change was made by someone at an IP address registered to Geico. Before I had read the procedures regarding disputes, I went ahead and reverted the text to my original edit. Sorry about that. It won't happen again. But, now that I have read the procedures regarding dispute resolution, I am unsure about whom to contact to initiate the necessary discussion. Can you help? Thanks. Abelmunoz 20:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wabash County, Illinois

I noticed that you added a bunch of pictures to the Mount Carmel article. I was wondering if you would be able to take pictures of Wabash County, similar to what I have been doing with Ogle County, Illinois. Basically just made sure I had pics of all the "populated places" in the county. Good work with those Mount Carmel pics again.--Kranar drogin 03:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Done - thanks for the reminder. MrZaius^talk 19:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so that means you have pictures of those other three villages and of the unincoporated places? If so, I will put geoboxes in them so that a pic can be applied to each article.--Kranar drogin 23:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope - just meant that some basic pics had been posted from Illinois Route 15/Mount Carmel, Illinois. Unfortunately I only had a very limited amount of time on my last pass through S. Illinois. I believe the other towns and such still have open image requests, so maybe you could post to their talk pages and request that select new images also be added to the county pages. MrZaius^talk 05:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No, no big deal. I thought you lived down that way and was just seeing if you would be able. No worries.--Kranar drogin 11:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Used to, but now I'm more capable of filling the reqphotos for Clay County, Missouri and the myriad pictureless towns articles therein. There were some users at Talk:Mount Carmel that might be able to help, though. MrZaius^talk 11:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: The Naked Scientists Radio Show

Hi,

I'm the producer of the Naked Scientists Radio Show, I uploaded a list of our show topics and content today so that wikipedia users could search our shows. It seems that you have removed the list as spam, please could you explain why? As wikipedia links will not affect google ranking, I did not think it would be a problem to provide a list of our content with links so that people could search our archive and then go directly to the show they would like to hear.

Thanks in advance,

The Naked Scientists.

The list had no clear attribution and no clear licensing information to explain why the Wikipedia could legally reprint those blurbs under the GFDL. Equally important, they were worded in a tone that was hardly encyclopedic, reading like blatant advertising. Furthermore, the myriad external links read like linkspam/violations of our policies aimed at keeping the Wikipedia from becoming a collection of indiscriminate links or simple plot summaries without independently sourced analysis. That said, you do raise an interesting point as to whether or not podcast episode lists should be published - They generally are not, given the massive number of episodes and the availability of complete and detailed information on the publisher's website, the lack of independent commentary and clear cases for Wikipedia:Notability et al. Had a spammy list of television episodes written in an advertiser's tone appeared for a television series, restoring a cleaned up version might not be out of line. Opened a discussion here to determine the appropriate course of action: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Podcasting. Thanks, MrZaius^talk 18:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That off-topic post

I appreciate your willingness to help keep wikipedia clean, but that wasn't an off topic post. It was referring to a previous section but since I no longer see the little 'edit' links at the top of each section, I didn't feel like clicking "Edit this page" and placing the text. At this time, it may be off topic, agreed. But it was not a message that one should revert. --Amaraiel 22:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

See WP:TALK - it was justified, although I won't remove it a second time if you feel the need to restore them. Out of context, both still read like posts to some open forum, rather than discussion of the article. This is doubly true of the question about which port to use. MrZaius^talk 22:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. I know reason when it's right in front of me. I was just stating for the record thats all. Believe me, I hate confrontation and certainly not in a mood to start one right now (Nor am I ever). --Amaraiel 23:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Templates

You can find Clean-up templates and all other templates via this main menu Wikipedia:Template messages - X201 10:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup - just got in the bad habit of looking at the Citation templates and/or Citation style page first, especially the latter when searching for "citation style" in hopes of finding {{citation style}}. It's becoming less of an issues, but when there's one person that does it and gripes, there's probably four that do it and are silent ;) A link in Citation style#See also to the cleanup templates would be useful and relevant, and for more than just the reasons given above. MrZaius^talk 10:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Mrzaius. Thanks for your response to my earlier post on this subject. Since my reversion of the text has not been modified again, the issue may be resolved for now. I'll contact you should there be any problems in the future. Abelmunoz 17:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

history lesson

i tried to post a wikipedia entry about verve energy drink. it is now missing and your name is in the history. could you please explain what happened? hang on! it might be courteous if you could guide a new person, rather than smack a delete stamp on their first entry. i will gladly comply and will discuss this further in the talk/discussion on my tagged submission. thank you. Erichnwise 11:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The post was tagged with {{db-company}}, as it lacked a clear assertion of notability (See WP:RS and WP:NOTE). However, as I recall, it may have been salvageable. Withdrew nomination for speedy deletion. That said, I'm not sure why you're saying that it's missing. I still see the article at Vemma Verve! (energy drink). Note that if the notability of the topic isn't clearly established within a couple of days or weeks, it is likely that the article will be flagged for deletion again, albeit through the more lengthy {{prod}} or WP:AfD processes. MrZaius^talk 11:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC) PS: Note that without having garnered any print or press coverage accessible through common sources like Google News or Google Books, it may be difficult to meet WP:NOTE at this time. If it doesn't stick, give it another shot when/if the firm does begin to attract some attention from Wikipedia:Reliable sources

obviously, new kids needs mentors. humbly i apologize and i have received the link in mytalk about ways to become involved and valuable here at wikipedia. i am grateful for your immediate attention and constructive criticism. thank you for reviewing my entry and helping to make it more valuable to the community at large. Erichnwise 11:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Scroll box

How do I get the scroll box to be centered on the page instead of being left justified, such as use on this page? -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless you use <center></center>html markup surrounding the scroll box, it isn't possible with the current markup. However, you can just use width of 100% to force it to touch both sides of the page.

Got it? Btw, I'll make the adjustment to the DRV. MrZaius^talk 19:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2007

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When using certain templates on talk pages, as you did to User talk:Rhatsa26WB, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thank you. Remember to subst: all welcome templates, such as welcomeg, which has the added effect of signing for you. FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 01:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)