User:Zzyzx11/Archive27

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Cupertino, California

Good catch. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

When reverting, please be mindful to restore constructive edits that were not part of the dispute. I noticed that you also received a complaint regarding your revert to Oakland, California. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Tejon Pass

In changing the left pullquote to a center quote, are you suggesting that the instructions for such a format by removed, or denigrated?? Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out why, on wide screen monitors such as mine and a few others I have tested, that the layout causes {{rquote}} to be pushed all the way into the middle of the references section. Using the center quote is a temporary solution for now. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a well-known Cascading Style Sheets bug. Don't want to sound to technical, but there are just way too many right-positioned infoboxes and images for the amount of text that is in the lead, Geography, and History sections. So unless I use {{clear}} as a formatting fix, or re-position the images, web browsers on wide-screen monitors will want to push the left-positioned quote all the way down to at the level just below where the top of the second image is. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow! According to your screen shot, the pull quote was pulled (sorry!) way down into the references! I'd like to keep the pull quote on the left side if at all possible because this looks like one of the very few times I have seen one of these typographic formats used in Wikipedia just the way it should be — as a sidebar to the main text. I removed the small graphic, which doesn't show very much anyway. How does that work? GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That is acceptable. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at this

Template talk:Infobox television#Removal of status parameter, The concensus seems pretty unanimous for removal. Quasy Boy 12:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking me to contribute to the discussion? Or are you searching for an impartial, uninvolved admin to close the discussion? I will say this: My opinions would most likely not change consensus since I would be in the minority... Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking you to close the discussion. It clearly has enough support votes to be closed. I thought I would ask you because you are one of the last few admin editors to edit the infobox. An {{edit protected}} tag has been added now. Quasy Boy 04:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Was updated by User:Ucucha at 21:21 11 Aug.[1] Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Eurovision, Eurovision Song Contest and [[Eurovision (network)

It was C&P moves? Phanuruch8555 (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Image Fair Use

RE- File:Chelsea Handler I AM EQUAL photo.jpg Fair Use: Image is from the publicly accessible project photo gallery (http://photo.iamequalproject.org) and a free version can not be created due to logo and photographic trademarks held by Jason Beckett, Matt Spencer, and the I AM EQUAL Foundation. Images from the gallery have been freely used in newspapers, blogs, social media, and TV news reports across the US. Steinway1701 (talk) 04:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

All images that are uploaded and claimed as fair use must comply with the policies detailed on Wikipedia:Non-free content. Please follow those guidelines if you wish to re-upload the image again. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

And I am in no position to restore it because one of the requirements is to include a sufficient fair use rationale, which should be written by the uploader. Otherwise it goes immediately back to the speedy deletion queue. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I've figured out the Fair Use and non-free rational elements, and I now know how to add them to to files...but I can't re-upload the files because the system keeps throwing an exception that the "exact file was already deleted"...but all options from that point take me to a server error. I'd like to put the correct licensing and non-free templates in the files so they can be added to the I Am Equal (photo documentary) article. Please advise. Steinway1701 (talk) 09:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Make sure you click the last check box in the "Upload options" section at the bottom of the form just above the "upload file" button that says "Ignore any warnings". That will cause it to bypass that second "exact file was already deleted" screen, and seems to also avoid that server error problem as well. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:FIFA (video game series)

Hello, you restored Template:FIFA (video game series) but it was nominated for deletion straight away. I have reset the time, so that you can consider and delete or use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I have now deleted it. Apparently all instances of tranclusion were reverted back to the original template Template:Football video games by Electronic Arts. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Cliff Hangers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cliff Hangers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliff Hangers (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Gh87 (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Barack Obama jobs speech -> Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, September 2011

How was that not a copy-paste move? The entire content of Barack Obama jobs speech which existed first was overwritten on top of Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, September 2011, leaving none of the original content with the edit summary "Merge in sourced content from duplicate article" which failed to credit which article. jorgenev 21:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It was a page merge instead of a cut and paste move because the two pages were created independently: yours at 16:51, 31 August 2011 [2], and another user created the second page at 10:48, 2 September 2011 [3] – which I can tell was made with the Article Wizard because it was automatically put in . Also, it is a merger of the content of the both pages instead of just merely copying and pasting the content of one to the other.[[4]]

Yes, the only mistake that the user who performed that merger made, per WP:MERGE#Performing the merger, was that he forgot to include the link to the first article in the edit summary.[5] He did however include the appropriate links in the edit summary on the other page.[6] Just because he forgot one step in the merger process does not disqualify it as a legitimate merger.

I think the other part that leads to this confusion was that after the merger, a totally different user removed a significant part of the content at 13:38, 2 September 2011. [7] The net result makes it appear that there was a cut and paste move, which in fact there really wasn't.

Per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Repairing insufficient attribution, one remedy is to add, like I did, a message in the edit summary to point out the merger.[8]. Second is to also add {{copied}} to the talk page, which I have also done.[9] Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Kevin L Parkin

I am assured (by Dr. Parkin) that the CMU page from which part of that article was taken is not under copyright.

What do I need to do to get the article back? Keith Henson (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you in contact with Parkin himself? If so, and to avoid any further misunderstandings by other Wikipedia admins, you should follow the directions set forth on Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Specifically, you should follow the following steps:

1) Parkin must write an email to you that either explicitly states that his CMU page is public domain, or that it can be licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). If he agrees to license it under the CC-BY-SA, he should understand that this means that:

The text may be freely redistributed and used.
It may be freely modified, and modified versions may also be freely redistributed and used.
In all cases, CC-BY-SA requires proper attribution of the author(s).
CC-BY-SA allows commercial re-uses provided such re-use is also under CC-BY-SA.

2) Recreate the article on Parkin

Argh! Not sure I saved a copy. It is lost for good?

3) Forward the emails to Wikipedia's volunteer response team at "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org". Make sure to include in the email to them:

Your the original request and Parkin's confirmation answer
both the source Internet URL and the Wikimedia link for article, as this will enable the Wikimedia information team to verify the materials.

4) Add {{OTRS pending}} to the talk/discussion page of the article you created on Parkin. This will help an editor with access to OTRS to tag the article or image with {{PermissionOTRS|ticket=http://linktoticket.org }} providing evidence of the received e-mail and clearing the status of the item in question. Providing the link to the OTRS ticket number is essential for easy verification.

The other option is to not copy and paste anything on Parkin's page at all, and instead rewrite the entire article in your own words. Whatever of the two options you choose, I might not be able to help you if other Wikipedia users feel that Parkin himself does not pass Wikipedia's Notability criteria (see Wikipedia:Notability for that general guideline, and both the more specific Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Notability (academics) guidelines that would probably apply to Parkin). Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is any doubt about his notability. Guy is an up and coming force in beamed energy propulsion and there are at least a dozen paper articles out there about him, plus a couple of red Wikipedia references. There will be more since NASA Ames recently bought him a $2 million, 1.2 MW, 110 GHz gyrotron to test hydrogen heaters. Keith Henson (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Much thanks! Keith Henson (talk) 04:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for reconsideration of deletion

Hi Zzyzx11, I'm writing to request a review of your decision to delete the page "zinepak." (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zinepak&action=edit&redlink=1) It was not written as an advertisement and contains multiple citations from reputable publications and organizations. I don't think the citation list populated at the bottom of the page because I didn't know to type

, but I entered the URLs for each reference in the body of the article. If the page is in violation of any Wikipedia rules as currently written, can you please advise on what edits should be made? I reviewed the list of criteria before creating the article and thought it was within the regulations. It does contain external links to product pages, but those were meant as citation references (and can be removed if necessary). I believe the page has merit to explain the new packaging configuration; close to 200,000 units have been sold, and releases have qualified (and will continue to qualify) for Billboard chart positions. Thanks for your assistance! BrittanyHodak (talk) 06:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC) BrittanyHodak

Let me preface this by saying this: your user name is the same as the co-founder of the company in question. If you are in fact that person, you will have a conflict of interest. The guidelines for such type of editing can be found on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. In short: "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers. This is because it is incompatible with the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia."

The page in question was deleted under deletion criteria # G12: "An article that only promotes an entity, person or product and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic article." The article had the tone of a press release, primarily to promote the product and the company. And yes, it does not help matters when you only primarily cite press releases and product pages.

If you would like to re-create this article, the guidelines on the inclusion of companies can be found on Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The most important criterion is that "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." There should probably be more sources than just one write up from the Times Record (the citation to www.billboard.biz does not count because it does not directly relate to the company or its product; just because a title uses the said product, that is not normally a factor on it staying on top of the Billboard charts, and such a trivial point would commonly be found in a press release.)

But again, if you are in fact the co-founder of the said company, I strongly urge you to refrain from creating an article about your company, and instead look into other marketing means. Editing in the interests of public relations is particularly frowned upon, and many people who do have a conflict of interest (ranging from employees of public companies to those in the offices of prominent politicians) are extremely tempted to improve their organization's image by "doctoring" the articles about themselves. Wikipedia is a very public forum (with each edit being recorded in a page history log), and news of what occurs here is frequently reported in the media. Regards. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

63rd Primetime Emmy Awards

Thanks for filling out 63rd Primetime Emmy Awards. I was shocked when I visited the page, two days after the ceremony, and there weren't any results. 117Avenue (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Emmy Award

Hello Zzyzx11! I wanted to let you know that I reverted your edit to the Emmy Award article noting that the "Regional Award" were debatable. I worked for many years before I resigned as a board of director for the academy. I can assure you that they hold the regional awards to the same standards as the Daytime or Primetime. They are very proud of ALL of the Emmy winners. The verbiage that you removed was supported by the content of the article when it stated that the Emmys covered, "NEWS, SPORTS" and other media events. The ONLY reason that they even have regionals is because they do not have time in the Primetime or Daytime to combine them for the purposes of an awards show. So, they break them down so they can in fact give Emmys to those who are deserving. But again, the regionals are just as important and notable. Thank you! --Canyouhearmenow 11:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That sentence actually had nothing to do with "importance or significane" per se – that sentence was mentioning which ceremonies were the "best known". In terms of coverage by third party reliable sources, it is debatable wheather the regionals are one of the "best known" Emmy ceremonies on par with the daytime and the primetime ceremonies. Wikipedia is primarily based on content that is verifiable from mainstream reliable sources. Most of the mainstream media, especially national media, extensively cover both the daytime and the primetime. The regionals, along with the news and the sports Emmys, do not have the same extensive media blitz and coverage as the daytime and primetime do. Therefore you cannot say that the regionals are on that same "well known" level as the daytime and primetime. Regards. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

As a compromise, I have rewritten it it so it reads that the Primetime Emmys and the Daytime Emmys just tend to receive the most media coverage, instead of both they and the regionals are all the best known. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the compromise! FYI for the future. The regionals in fact do have a large amount of media coverage for their events. Agreed that they do not reach the "Global" market like the Daytime or Primetime as we can both agree. However, in their respective market; which in many cases contain multiple states they are promotionally blitzed the same as the larger ones and do in fact draw mainstream actors and actresses just as the others. The Southeast Emmy Awards drew Ted Turner and the whole cast of Drop Dead Diva and How I Met Your Mother during their recent event. I just want to make sure that we are not reducing the significance and purpose of the regionals. But I can live with the compromise because I feel it is a factual statement. Thanks for all you do! --Canyouhearmenow 11:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it now sounds better. Because of that increased media coverage, there is probably a global misconception that its just the primetime and daytime Emmys. But the current wording now gives the message that there are far, far more ceremonies than that. Zzyzx11 (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. You will also notice that I changed a small wording in your edit to make it more accurate and then I created the Emmy Statue section. It always bothered me that there was no reference to its origins or creation except that small part in the History section. So you may want to read over it and see how you like it. I need to go back and maybe hone it a little better but I wrote it quickly but concisely LOL. Again, Thanks! --Canyouhearmenow 14:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Very nice work there! I like the addition..I didn't even think to put those facts in but they are none the less very important. We may be able to whip this article into something people might even want to read! LOL Thanks for helping!! --Canyouhearmenow 21:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Question

I left a question for you on my own talk page. PPdd (talk) 03:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Oakland california template

Thanks for your edits to the template. i was surprised at first (i know i dont "own" articles, but i seem to have an emotional stake in what i write. pretty normal), but i now like what you did, and used your ideas to modify the hayward template. I did not place any of the articles in the "atractions" template in this main template, but I suspect many articles should/could go in both. I may do this, but i would prefer to wait to see if others have similar ideas. again, thanks.(mercurywoodrose)66.80.6.163 (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the templates for the major California cities (LA, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, etc.) should have similar stuff. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Western Conference (NBA)

The majority of teams in this division are within the Western United States, please do not deleted related category. Thanks Xnatedawgx (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing pages, "Each article should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs" and "Categorize articles by characteristics of the topic, not characteristics of the article". Your recent additions are overly broad categorizations. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

As a compromise, I have created Category:Sports in the Western United States. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Jennifer Love Hewitt Image

Why on Earth would you think cropping that image is necessary? I mean: she's a beautiful woman, and is clearly not ashamed of her womanhood. Why should we be? The image is not a fair-use-only one, and no crop is needed. Doc talk 07:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

As you know, per WP:BOLD, "the boldness of contributors like you [and me] is one of Wikipedia's greatest assets". And by being bold, I thought a head shot would look better since it is closer to 220px default thumbnail size, and let the assets of the infobox and the prose speak for itself. After all, just because we have assets of free images, both here locally on en.wikipedia and on the Wikimedia Commons, it is not an excuse to add them all just because you can. But it is quite clear to me now that there are more Wikipedians who feel that the Hewitt article should have a portrait image that more clearly and significantly increases people's understanding of her assets. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah - It's a really nice picture :) Doc talk 08:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Soap Operas alert

As a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas, and in accordance with the appropriate notification in deference to canvassing, I am alerting your attention to several current discussions for deletion pertaining to soap opera characters. This is an invitation to participate in the discussion. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 19:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Joe Buck

Not sure you really meant indefinite semiprotection, thus posting. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 04:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry, I forgot to specify a expiry time. But now that I look at the page history for the past year, and knowing that Buck tends to get heavily and repeatedly criticized in the media and on message boards for his style of play by play commentary (see also Talk:Joe Buck#"Controversy"??? and Talk:Joe Buck#Article Protection? for example), I think I'm leaning to keep it as an indefinite semi-protected page for now. Since you're also an admin, feel free to change the expiry time if you disagree. Cheers.Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I am neutral in this case, and just know by personal experience that misclicking is common when protecting articles. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 04:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello Zzyzx11! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 03:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Network current show templates

I see you overhauled ABC, CBS and NBC. What do you think we should do with FOX and The CW?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly because those two do not have an extensive lineup as the Big Three. That is why I hesitated on those two. CW does have the Toonzai Saturday morning block, and there is Fox Sports. Not sure where Fox News Sunday would go, unless it has its own row. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

TFD notice

Thanks again for your time and assistance on the TV templates. Since you seem to think they are a worthwhile time expenditure, I thought I would notify you of the TFD at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Network_templates_2. Please comment there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I decline and stay neutral. Although I find them somewhat useful, there are a couple of issues I have with the templates (vis a vis a couple of things on WP:CLS). And because of the way the discussion is currently going, it's probably best to stay out unless it'll be a "game-changer"... Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I have not read WP:CLS closely, but the WP:NOTDUP section seems to be contrary to a lot of the debate currently being presented. In terms of a game changer, if people who care enough about the topic to spend time editing it don't care, it is likely to be deleted. I think if one or two people had decided not to vote in the first TFD it would have changed the results to a delete. Your decision not to vote could easily be the difference.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, most debates on TFD regarding navboxes, including this one, reflect the third paragraph of WP:CLS, which reads, "there may be circumstances where consensus determines that one or more methods of presenting information is inappropriate for Wikipedia". They are not arguing that we should merely delete those navboxes because they overlap with similar categories and lists (which the WP:NOTDUP section addresses). Instead, the discussion is more about the WP:NAVBOX section, and the guidelines of what a "good template" should have: "If the collection of articles [on the navbox] does not meet these tests, that indicates that the articles are loosely-related, and a list or category may be more appropriate". And then there is bullet point #3 of WP:CLS#Disadvantages of templates, which discourages templates that may inadvertently push a POV, or incorrectly suggest that one aspect of a topic is vastly more important than it really is. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That page seems to be a justification for deleting 95% of the templates that prevail on wikipedia. Templates like Template:Academy Award Best Actor, Template:Nobel Prize in Physics, Template:Current US state Chief Justices and Template:Tour de France Yellow Jersey should all be deleted by those guidelines. The guidelines don't really represent they way wikipedia seems to feel about templates in general, but seems to give grounds to delete almost all templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a reason why I have tried to stay neutral on such TFD navbox discussions for the past four years, knowing full well what the defacto consensus is for what should or should not be on navboxes, and knowing that I am in the minority. If I did not keep my self-imposed prohibition on such matters, there might be tons of more nominations like this one and that one. Although WP:CLS has changed somewhat since 2007, my general concerns on how navboxes are basically being (mis)used does not reflect current consensus. So it is just best for me to basically step back and walk away. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
And to be honest, I waited until the first nomination was closed before editing those network navboxes in order to make them more useful for the time being, not really expecting that there would be the second deletion discussion that soon. I apologize if those edits gave you the impression that I personally cared enough about keeping them for the long term. But a significant majority of the primetime programs on ABC, CBS and NBC are also broadcast in other countries; such navboxes are essentially useless to non-Americans; I'd hate to see, for example, that a show with an international audience like The Bold and the Beautiful would end up having 30+ navboxes. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me be clear to you and everyone else who may read this: I still continue to make frequent edits to navboxes to make it more useful for others. That said, I disagree with the current consensus to make navboxes for almost every single thing, even for characteristics that are tangentially related or only a minority of readers will care about; to "stuff" bio articles like David Beckham, Tom Brady, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, etc. with as many navboxes as possible; using techniques such as "collapsing navboxes" and {{Navboxes}} to "hide" these navboxes despite the fact that it does not affect filesize and download times; and the simple fact that in 2008 we officially decided to rename them navigation boxes and stop using the original article series boxes name, which IMO gave carte blanche for users to start enacting my aformentioned complaints. I'm not looking forward to the pending creation of the 2011 annual World Series championship template. But again, I have to tolerate current consensus even if I don't agree with it ... OK, my rant is over ... let's get back to editing ... Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

OTD RFC

I have opened an RfC related to an issue on which you recently commented: Wikipedia_talk:Selected_anniversaries#Year_wikilinking_in_OTD. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

As Nil Einne tried to explain on Talk:Main page, please make sure this RFC is widely advertised and well organised. Otherwise, there will be less of a chance that it will reveal a clear consensus, and thus may unfortunately end up like most of the other discussions regarding main page layout: "Non Consensus -> Retain Status Quo". Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, an RFC is a discussion, not a vote. If this edit was your intention to change the format midway through the discussion, and have a separate "Voting" section, I might have reason to complain since Howcheng, WFCforLife, and Kevin McE have already expressed interest in keeping the links. Thus it will be disingenuous not to count their "votes". Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up my fix of Pan-Asian Repertory Theatre, much appreciated. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Rmdl2006

FYI, user Rmdl2006 has returned, deleted your comments from said user's talk page, and resumed moving pages (e.g., Berkeley Repertory Theatre—how Berkeley Rep spells their own name—is once again moved to Berkeley Repertory Theater), and attempts to engage in edit comments and on the user's talk page are being ignored (yours aren't the first comments to be deleted).

The edits seem to be radiating outward from the Keong Sim page: theaters that the actor has played in, Glee characters that Keong Sim in his role as Michael Chang, Sr. has interacted with, and so on. As a member of the Glee task force, I'll do my best to keep the Glee pages accurate and consistent, though we're already sitting out a seven-day wait to get the Mike Chang (Glee) article back to being named Mike Chang, which is a bit of a pain. Thanks for any further action you can take in this matter. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems I have gotten this user's attention...[10] Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Zzyzx11! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 14:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Current events World Series

Can you find the specific page with that consensus? Marcus Qwertyus 06:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I can remember the following discussions and complaints about listing individual sports scores, or limiting the amount of sports news, on the main current events pages instead of Portal:Current events/Sports: Portal talk:Current events/Archive 7#Sports news in the main news pages, Portal talk:Current events/Archive 6#Not a news item, and Portal talk:Current events/Archive 4#World news headline. But not specially on listing each individual World Series game per se. The current practice for the past several years has been to only report when a team has actually won the World Series,[11] or clinched a championship. You also never see any of the individual games of the NBA Finals, Stanley Cup Finals, FIFA World Cup, FA Trophy, and other sports competitions (which, on a related note, is the basic same reasons why WP:ITNSPORTS states "Every entry applies to the conclusion of the tournament or series"). Again, they are usually confined to Portal:Current events/Sports. Thus, if you revert my edits back to your preferred version, or an anon IP like this one re-adds it,[12] I would not at all be surprised if someone else removes them again. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

File:WA-99.svg

Thanks for the heads-up! Dualus (talk) 05:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Oakland Raiders helmet rightface.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Oakland Raiders helmet rightface.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

National Football League

Hi, I don't understand what you're saying on that article. Why would American football articles be referred to as American football, while Association football articles are referred to as football? Beyond495 (talk) 05:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

There was a large discussion on Talk:Football/Archive 16#Naming Standardization In Different Codes to implement a general standard across all football articles on all football codes. The main point is that there was no consensus to implement such a standard across the board. Thus, there are two options that are currently used are:

Option #1. Using the name of the particular code uniformly, regardless of geography -- meaning that the terms American Football, Canadian Football, Association Football, Rugby Football, Australian Rules Football and Gaelic Football are used in articles instead of Football in the first sentence. This option is primarily used by those who edit the American football articles because we want to make the distinction what specific football code the article is talking about. This is the same type of thing we do with abbreviations.

Option #2. The WP:ENGVAR option Going by whatever the locals refer to as football in the first sentence. This is the type of edit you made. This option is used on the Association football articles. The rationale is that Association football is the more common football code played around the world, so a disambiguation is not necessarily needed in most cases.

Okay, I don't get that. Why isn't it acceptable to use WP:ENGVAR for the National Football League articles? American football is a far more popular code in the United States than Association football/Soccer. Beyond495 (talk) 05:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

We are following WP:ENGVAR throughout most of the article – except for the first sentence to clarify for anyone outside the United States who stumbles on the article. Per WP:OBVIOUS - state the obvious.

remember, Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, and covers all types of football. Calling it "American football" in the first instance in articles clarifies what sport is intended for international readers. Of course, it is not needed in some cases like the Ricky Williams (American football, born 1978) article because the title gives it away.

Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, I don't understand how "international" is "non-American." I would think that it would go both ways, that articles should be equally immediately understandable for American and non-American readers. Most Americans refer to it as Soccer rather than Football, and referring to it as such might be confusing for them if that's the case.Beyond495 (talk) 05:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

"Soccer" is less of an ambiguous word than "football". If a reader outside the US sees the word "football", he or she is more likely to expect to go to the Association football article than the American football when clicking on the piped link. Per the Wikipedia:Principle of least astonishment, we should make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link, and not have it hidden inside that piped link.

Also, "it could go both ways" is one of the reasons there is no agreement or consensus on an across the board standard. One group generally prefers option 1, and the other group generally prefers option 2. Since you seem to still be a relatively new user, you may have not yet come across the different standards that exist on the sports articles. For instance, there is Template:2011 St. Louis Cardinals, listing the roster of the 2011 World Series champions. Yet there is no similar template that exists for the 2011 Stanley Cup Finals Champion Boston Bruins because those who edit the hockey articles disagree with such a navigation box. Because nobody can agree on an across the board standard on all the sports articles, each group sort of literally does their own thing (notwithstanding the general Wikipedia rules and guidelines). Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That's just it though. Per the least astonishment rule you just mentioned, a US user would initially see, say, Manchester United with football in the lede and might wonder who their quarterback was initially since Americans think of American football as football. It almost seems like American readers are considered inferior to non-American readers. Beyond495 (talk) 06:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

"It almost seems like American readers are considered inferior to non-American readers" -- If you ever have a chance to contribute to Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates or a few other places, you might also get that feeling. One of the problems with Wikipedia is the systemic bias (See also Wikipedia:Systemic bias). Unfortunately, there have been several debates and discussions on various articles where it seems that it's American editors vs. European editors. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

If that's the case, why don't we start to fight that systematic bias right here? That stuff you showed me seemed utterly meaningless, I don't see how it holds any bearing on anything, especially given the fact that it seems to be an example of systematic bias harming Wikipedia. Beyond495 (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully not with an WP:edit war, right? You cannot "fight" without the numbers to overturn consensus, you know. A lot of arguments people make around here seem to be "meaningless" to the opposition, especially when people are trying to apply Wikipedia's guidelines to their specific situation. That's unfortunately is the underlying politics around here. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like you don't agree with the "underlying politics" around here either. I don't want to "war" with anybody, that's why I wanted to talk to you here rather than just going back to the NFL article, I just want to make this website better. I want to build a clear consensus rather than that garbledygook you showed me that doesn't seem to be for or against anything.

You're more experienced than me though, if you think the systematic bias can't ever be fixed, that we shouldn't even bother trying to make the website better, I'll trust your judgement. Beyond495 (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my problem is that I have no longer have the time because of what I do in real life outside of editing Wikipedia. If you do have the time and the patience, feel free to go ahead. Remember, consensus can change, even if it may several years. I wish you good luck. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Understood, thank you for the advice here as well as the civil conversation. On that note, do you mind if I take the first step toward changing that consensus and going back to what we had before on the football articles? Beyond495 (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I really have no objection on the NFL team articles, the super bowl articles, etc. because it directly references "National Football League" in order to provide context. Only the NFL article itself, because there is no such direct, clear context (Fußball-Bundesliga, Premier League and The Football League also explicitly use "Association football" in its first sentence). However, I just made some additions there where the exact phrase "American football" may be required in order to make sense. That is my compromise. Of course again, anything you and I agree here easily be reverted by another who disagrees. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, I'll try to follow the compromise you set here, and if I see any reversions by others, I'll try to build upon this conversation elsewhere, although you said you had some time constraints, so if you'd prefer to avoid any lengthy discussions, I'm happy to respect your schedule. Again, thank you for your attempt to help me understand what's going on here. Beyond495 (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Fox Sports

Greetings! Let's come up with a solution for this quandary that recognizes that the primary topic of the term, Fox Sports, is a collection of sports stations that are affiliated in some way (or, at least, not completely unrelated to each other). bd2412 T 17:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

How about I start some sort of stub of a WP:DABCONCEPT article? Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I think your current solution is excellent. Thanks! bd2412 T 17:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:DeletedPage

Hi Zzyzx11. A page which you SALT'ed back in 2005 is up for unprotection at WP:RFUP. You may want to consider if create protection is still necessary. -- œ ^™ 17:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC) WP:RFUP

<scratches head> How did you manage to delete a deleted page? -- œ ^™ 18:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It was a protected redirect, not a salted deleted page. We did not have the capacity back in 2005 to salt a page. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh. Got a little confused. :) -- œ ^™ 18:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	I think that you might be the only person I decided to give this to; Thanks for helping with editing and other things! AvesDiscoveries (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of NFL helmet images: may be replaceable fair use images

Automated messages from WP:TW (and its WP:DTTR bug...) Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Dallas Cowboys helmet rightface.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dallas Cowboys helmet rightface.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Mt king ^(edits) 02:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

File:New York Giants helmet rightface.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:New York Giants helmet rightface.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Mt king ^(edits) 02:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

File:San Francisco 49ers helmet rightface.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:San Francisco 49ers helmet rightface.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Mt king ^(edits) 02:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:St. Louis Rams helmet rightface.png

Thanks for uploading File:St. Louis Rams helmet rightface.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mt king ^(edits) 20:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Tampa Bay Buccaneers helmet rightface.png

Thanks for uploading File:Tampa Bay Buccaneers helmet rightface.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mt king ^(edits) 20:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Tennessee Titans helmet rightface.png

Thanks for uploading File:Tennessee Titans helmet rightface.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mt king ^(edits) 20:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Washington Redskins helmet rightface.png

Thanks for uploading File:Washington Redskins helmet rightface.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mt king ^(edits) 20:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Arizona Cardinals helmet rightface.png

Thanks for uploading File:Arizona Cardinals helmet rightface.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mt king ^(edits) 08:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Atlanta Falcons helmet rightface.png

Thanks for uploading File:Atlanta Falcons helmet rightface.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mt king ^(edits) 08:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Baltimore Ravens helmet rightface.png

Thanks for uploading File:Baltimore Ravens helmet rightface.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mt king ^(edits) 08:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Buffalo Bills helmet rightface.png

Thanks for uploading File:Buffalo Bills helmet rightface.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mt king ^(edits) 08:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Carolina Panthers helmet rightface.png

Thanks for uploading File:Carolina Panthers helmet rightface.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mt king ^(edits) 22:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Chicago Bears helmet rightface.png

Thanks for uploading File:Chicago Bears helmet rightface.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mt king ^(edits) 22:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Denver Broncos helmet rightface.png

Thanks for uploading File:Denver Broncos helmet rightface.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mt king ^(edits) 22:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Good luck. A few years ago, a user previously tried to nominate an NFL helmet logo for deletion over the same claim that the helmet should be a {{PD-ineligible}} -- it was deleted -- however the same image was eventually re-uploaded again with a similar fair use claim. You know those newbies -- they want to have the same consistent look, and therefore upload all 32 images from a particular set, whether sportslogos.net, or another source (rather than you suggested, try to take a photo at a game)... Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, the relevant issues were discussed on Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 December 11#File:LSU Helmet.png regarding the deletion of such helmet issues. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You just reported me for vandalism - why?

Please explain, because I was not trying to vandalise anything, and I don't know what you think I vandalised!88.166.32.210 (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Whois has nothing to do with reporting you as a vandal per se. It's purpose is to provide information about your IP address and where you are located.

As others have suggested, you should create an account in order to post what you want on your talk page. How does anyone know that your IP address is not shared and you are the only person using it? Otherwise, others are going to assume it is a shared IP and will remove your edits. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! However I don't understand why people would want to remove my edits - IP signature visible - from my IP talk page without explanation.88.166.32.210 (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I am talking about MY talk page! Guidelines say you should discuss with ME before editing my user talk page -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages#Editing_of_other_editors.27_user_and_user_talk_pages 88.166.32.210 (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

As an unregistered user instead of creating your own account, you do not have certain privileges. As I keep repeating, other regular, registered Wikipedians assume by default that the IP of an unregistered user is shared, and a different person will sooner or later be assigned on that IP. The user talk page of an unregistered user is thus treated as temporary, and may be blanked or deleted without notice to avoid confusing the next IP user assigned to that address. As Wikipedia:Why create an account?#Username states, a registered user "will have a permanent user talk page you can use to communicate with other users". (emphasis added) Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, Wikipedia:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages?, states that "You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere, but don't be inconsiderate. Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor." Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Cast members of As the World Turns

I've seen that you have contributed to this article. I wanted to know if it wouldn't be better to rename it List of As the World Turns cast members to provide consistency with the other soap opera articles. I have tried to move it but it wouldn't let me because only an administrator can move an article to a page that already exist. Farine (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I have merged the page histories per WP:HISTMERGE. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Farine (talk) 07:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

USRD WikiProject Newsletter, Winter 2012


Volume 5, Issue 1 • Winter 2011 • About the Newsletter
This edition is going out to all USRD WikiProject members (current, former, or potential) in addition to other subscribers as part of a roll call to update the participants list. Anyone that would like to continue to receive this newsletter in the future needs to update the subscription list if they are not already subscribed.
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features U.S. Roads consolidates M-6 article makes headlines Planning Department debuts Stub drive concludes early, successfully Editorial	State and national updates Project news Task force reports for MD, MI, PA, and VA
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—Imzadi 1979 → 22:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Academy Awards

Template:Infobox Academy Awards has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Amsaim (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Zzyzx11,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Talk:♖

Can you please undelete this page for a minute? I would like to save the text to my computer. Thank you. 108.41.150.107 (talk) 09:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

An attempt to undelete the article may lead another admin to speedy delete the page again, for the same reason, before you may be able to copy and paste the content to your computer...

Your text read as follows:

The ♖ is a Chess piece that can move any number of vacant squares in a straight line, along ranks and files.

The ♖ is the second most powerful piece in Chess.

The ♖ is worth 5 points.

The ♖ cannot jump over other pieces, except when they Castle.

The ♖ has a special move called "Castling"

In Castling, the ♔ and the ♖ work together. The ♔ moves two squares to the right or to the left and ♖ next to the ♔ jumps over it and moves two squares.

If you Castle Kingside as White, the ♔ goes from E1 to G1 while the ♖ goes H1 to F1. If you Castle Queenside as Black, the ♔ goes from E8 to C8 while the ♖ goes A8 to D8.

The following criteria must be met in order to Castle:

Neither the ♔ nor the ♖ must have moved in the game.
Neither the ♔ nor the ♖ can land on a square attacked by the enemy.
All the squares between the ♔ and ♖ must be clear.

The ♝ is a chess piece the move diagonally.

Each player starts with two ♝'s: one that travels on white squares and one that travels on black squares.

The ♝ is worth 3 points.

The ♔ is a chess piece that can move one square at a time along ranks or diagonals.

Each player starts with one ♔.

Each ♔ is starts on a square opposite it's color.

The ♔ is your most important piece. If it gets trapped, you are checkmated and you lose the game.

The ♔ shall not move to a square where it can be captured.

If the ♔ is threatened, you must make a move that parries the threat.

The ♔ cannot be exchanged or captured. If you're able to capture your opponent's ♔, you do not win the game. Rather, you must tell your opponent to retact his last move.

The ♕ is a chess piece that can move any number of squares along ranks, files or diagonals.

The ♕ moves like a ♔. Unlike the ♔ that can only move one square at a time, the ♕ can move an unlimited amount of vacant squares.

Unlike the ♔, a ♕ can be captured.

Unlike the ♔, threats to the ♕ can be ignored. If the ♔ is threatened, you are in check and you must answer the threat.

The ♕ is your most powerful piece.

The ♕ combines the powers of both the ♖ and the ♗.

The ♕ is worth 9 points.

The ♙ is a piece in chess that can only move forward.

Each player starts with eight ♙'s on the second rank.

On its first move (and only its first move), the ♙ can either move one or two squares forward.

♙'s cannot move backward.

♙'s do not capture the same way they move, they can only capture diagonally forward. If another piece is directly in front of the ♙ then it cannot move unless there is an enemy piece diagonally on the adjecent file.

A ♙ has two special moves in Chess.

The first special move: When a ♙ reaches its farthest square, something amazing happens. The ♙ can become any other piece you choose. This is called "♙ promotion".

Most of the time, players choose to change the ♙ into a ♕ since a ♕ is the most powerful piece. This is called "Queening a pawn".

Once a ♙ reaches the farthest rank, it must be promoted. You can choose any of the other five pieces.

The fact that you have your original ♕ on the board doesn't stop you from promoting a ♙ to another ♕! In fact you could have up to nine ♕s at a time! The same goes for other pieces as well.

The second special move is tricky: if a ♙ is on the fifth rank and your opponent moves his ♙ two squares forward, you can capture that ♙ diagonally forward as if it moved one square. This is call capturing En passant.

The ♘ is a Chess piece that moves in a L shaped pattern.

The ♘ is the only piece in Chess that can jump over other pieces.

The ♘'s destination square is always the opposite color it stands on. For example, a ♘ that is standing a white square will land on a black square, and vice-versa.

The ♘ does not capture any pieces it jumps over.

The ♘ is worth 3 points in Chess.

The ♗ is a Chess piece the moves diagonally along vacant squares.

Each player starts with two ♗'s: one that travels on white squares and one that travels on black squares.

The ♗ cannot jump over other pieces.

The ♗ is worth 3 points.

Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I just needed the text so I can save it. 108.41.150.107 (talk) 09:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem, but again, talk pages are not suppose to be used to save drafts of article content, especially content that basically duplicates existing articles. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic addition

Well done! Wifione ^Message 04:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It was meant to close any loophole of people trying to use illegally uploaded YouTube videos in citations instead of merely using them as external links. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Reconsideration of archived discussion

Having rolled out templates on episodes (e.g. "The Good Son" (Frasier) and "Pilot" (The Cosby Show)), I am reconsidering an archived discussion about templates on season articles: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Archive_14#Adding_seasons_to_award_winners. I have talked to the other two people who initially opposed and one has withdrawn his opposition, while the other is breathing fire because I asked for a reconsideration. Look at The West Wing (season 1), which has no templates. It seems to me that it would be helpful if that article included {{EmmyAward DramaSeries 1976–2000}}, {{ScreenActorsGuildAwards EnsembleTVDrama 2000–2009}}, {{GoldenGlobeTVDrama 1990–2009}}. Explain to me again why it should not have these templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Again there are two problems with linking season articles on these templates:

Only the Emmys goes by the standard TV season, from approximately June 1 to May 31. The eligibility period for both the Golden Globes and the SAG awards instead go by the calendar year from January 1 to December 31. Thus the Golden Globes and SAG templates would have to use some sort of notation like "Glee (S1/S2)" in order to be technically correct. The problem is that it would be confusing since a number of users might incorrectly assume that the eligibility period was two TV seasons in their entirety instead of just the calendar year.
Regarding the Emmys, there are some TV shows like The Sopranos and South Park whose seasons do not end before the usual May 31 deadline (for example, see South Park (season 15) – half of the shows aired in the spring, and the other half was broadcast in the fall), so again strictly linking to only one particular season article would be technically incorrect.

In other words, I'm opposed to listing the individual TV seasons of each show because they do not necessarily coincide with each award's eligibility period. The Emmys, the Golden Globes and the SAGs are awarded based on a specific period, not strictly based on a show's TV season. Cheers Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you think that synchronicity issue might be nitpicking compared to other topics on wikipedia. For example, an Album might be declared the {{Grammy Award for Album of the Year 2010s}} although some of it songs may be released in a different year from the award. Isn't it quite common for a play to earn {{TonyAward Musical 2001–2025}} by opening just before the cutoff period for eligibility even though most of its run is in another year. It seems that it is quite acceptable to have this type of synchronicity issues and it is not considered a point of confusion for the reader.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You are comparing apples to oranges. There is a generally common notion that a full TV season, especially on American television, spans roughly between September and May – with a distinct and highly noticeable "off-season" during the summer. Many readers will automatically assume that the award was given for that entire season period. There is really no clear comparative notion in the recording or theater industry, at least not to the general public that I am aware of, where there is a distinct "off-season". Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think we are suppose to assume our readers do not understand the concept of an "eligibility period". In all three of these cases, we assume that the reader understands that the work may have partly extended outside of that period. I don't think we should assume television article readers have less of an understanding of this than theatre or music article readers in this regard. Why is part of a television season falling inside an eligibility period different than part of a broadway run falling inside an eligibility period or part of a commercial release of works from an album falling in an eligibility period.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

In other words Play x wins for YYYY implies some of its run was in YYYY. Album x wins for YYYY implies some of its content release was in YYYY. Do we assume readers believe that Seasons 1 & 2 of Show x wins for YYYY means something other than some of seasons 1 & 2 were in YYYY?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, you are trying to use an apples vs. oranges and other stuff exists argument. TV is a totally different animal with a clear, distinct TV season. Readers have different assumptions about what a TV season is compared to a music season or a Broadway season. And actually it's not really that I think readers are "stupid"; its more so we, the Wikipedia editors, do not look stupid and do not know what we are talking about. Awards like the Golden Globes and the SAGS clearly say that these awards are for year XXXX, NOT season Y. So we should not provide information that some, especially IPs or drive-by regular users, may perceive as false or incorrect and try to repeatedly change the templates. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean perceive as false. If "Glee (S1/S2)" were on an article, what kind of edit warring would you anticipate?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, the other issue I believe I mentioned previously was inconsistency: What are you going to do with those navboxes like {{GoldenGlobeTVDrama 1969–1989}} that list shows that do not have any season articles yet? In fact, I doubt shows like Roots (TV miniseries), Shōgun (TV miniseries) and 60 Minutes will ever have separate season articles in the near future. Don't want IPs or drive-by regular users to repeatedly attempt to add or remove the season articles from the other templates for the "sake of consistency". And I'm not sure how others are going to react if that navbox is put on both season articles AND episode lists like List of Marcus Welby, M.D. episodes and List of Homeland episodes – will some also try to modify the links so they ALL point to episode lists, or remove all of them, also for the "sake of consistency"? Of course, you could add a redlinks such as one to Marcus Welby, M.D. (season 1), but the chances of that article being created are low due to the current systemic bias against older TV shows, and the red link may eventually get removed. And what will happen if some of these season articles get merged back into the episode list articles if there is consensus that these separate pages do not comply with WP:MOSTV#Multiple pages? IMO, lots of maintenance and content issues are going to crop up... Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

{{TopUSTVShows}} just leaves shows that have no season articles blank. It his been stable for over a year. I would do the same.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Tony, I'm going to take the high road. This conversation is going to go nowhere, because sooner or later I may end up mentioning what I said to you back in October, that I'm currently not a big fan of navboxes in general. And knowing you, this conversation could go on for several days as you continue to talk me out if it again. So I'm not going to oppose you creating the templates – as a test. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Wow!!! Thanks. You don't know how close I was to giving up. One other point. In terms of season articles being merged back into episode lists, I don't expect it to be a problem here, much like I don't expect it to be a problem at {{TopUSTVShows}}. Here we are dealing with arguably the most important season articles and least likely to be merged back. Stay tuned over the next month when I get around to this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  - FYI, I have almost finished comedy. I think it looks O.K., especially on these four articles that swept the awards: Ally McBeal (season 2), 30 Rock (season 2), 30 Rock (season 3), & Modern Family (season 2).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
    - All done. Drama had a few more sweeps The West Wing (season 1), The West Wing (season 2), and Lost (season 1) as well as several that we did not have articles for.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

	Archives 1 \| 2 \| 3 \| 4 \| 5 \| 6 \| 7 \| 8 \| 9 \| 10 \| 11 \| 12 \| 13 \| 14 \| 15 \| 16 \| 17 \| 18 \| 19 \| 20 \| 21 \| 22 \| 23 \| 24 \| 25 \| 26 \| 27 \| 28 \| 29 \| 30 \| 31 \| 32 \| 33 \| 34
Current time: Wednesday, November 6, 2024, 02:35 (UTC) Last edit: March 2, 2023, 08:07 (UTC) by MalnadachBot (talk · contribs)