User talk:Moonriddengirl

edit count | edit summary usage Welcome. To leave a message for me, please press the "new section" tab at the top of the page. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If I have left a message at your talk page that seems to invite reply, I am watching it, unless I've requested follow-up here. If you leave your reply for me here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply. If I think it would be helpful to you, I will leave a note at your talk page letting you know that an answer is available. If you have questions about a page I have deleted or a template message I have left on your user page, let me know civilly, and I will respond to you in the same way. I will not respond to a personal attack, except perhaps with a warning. Personal attacks are against Wikipedia policy, and those who issue them may be blocked. You may read more about my personal policies with regards to deletion and copyright. Admins, if you see that I've made a mistake, please fix it. I will not consider it wheel-warring if you reverse my admin actions as long as you leave me a civil note telling me what you've done and why and as long as you're open to discussion with me should I disagree. KaBlam! episodes Thanks for letting me know. I understand that these are the ups and downs of being a Wikipedian. Those were probably the only articles I created and they were deleted. It won't stop me from editing though. :) Mfowler11 (talk) talkback Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at Aervanath's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Could you look at something Before I go further with this I wanted to see if you could check out this: [1] Short version - opened discussion on the Heart (band) pages talk section on September 22 about "Country of Origin and some other thoughts". Discussion Started off civil however now has turned slightly ugly as Pdfpdf simply deletes/adds comment and has not given any factual reason as to why. Now there is an Edit War as well some other issues. I Tried to open a conversation on Pdfpdf's talk page yesterday however Pdfpdf ignored it and made the same edits/revision with more comments aimed at me. This morning I Issued warnings on the last edits. I Forgot to sign - my bad but no time to fix because user removed the warnings (See above diff) with the comment "Remove unsigned, unjustified, unsupported rubbish" in the edit box. Also the user placed a response on my talk page under the header "Vandalism Warning #1" where he accusing me of vandalizing his personal page and threating to have an admin block me if I discuss the issue further. So before I act on this further could you check it and offer any advise. Thanks Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Follow up - He reverted back to his comments on the refs on the Heart (band) page, added a shortened version to what he posted on my personal page to the discussion and made two more posting on my talk page, one of which asks: "'m not an expert on picture licenses & WP, but I have the impression that a non-public-domain picture needs a fair use rationale, and it seems to me this new picture doesn't have one.". If nothing else can you check [[Image:WhiteHeart1970.png]] and see if I left something out. (as a side note - I do have a rationale listed however it is not showing up in the main box and I can not find how to edit that) Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Hi. Sorry I wasn't able to get back to you sooner. It's unusual that I'm away from my keyboard all day. :) It looks to an outsider as though the two of you are having an ordinary content dispute. The exchanges you've recently had with each other on your personal pages seem to me to be a problem in both directions, possibly innocently on both sides. In my typical fashion, I'll explain why I think so in exhaustive detail. :) Trying to talk to the editor about your concerns is a good thing, but many Wikipedians are touchy about using templates in place of personal conversation with regular contributors (see Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars for example). I myself think they may have a purpose, but we need to be careful in their use. I might use {{uw-3RR}} (though not if I were also engaged), for instance, but not {{uw-preview}}. And one should never use one of the "vandalism" templates unless intentional disruption seems clear. Of the specific templates you chose, {{uw-blank}} presumes that the edits are unconstructive, which is a Wikipedia buzz-word for vandalism. As the warning template suggests, it is usually given where no edit summary explanation is provided or where the explanation is obviously illegitimate. Wikipedia:VAND#Types_of_vandalism notes that "significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism ... where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." A quick glance at the editor's contributions to Heart don't show anything to me in recent history that would suggest unconstructive blanking, although there's more "discussion" going on in the article than I believe there should be--rather than making notes in edit summary and hidden comments, it's much more constructive to actually talk about the issues at the article's talk page. I may have missed the edit to which you were referring. But if this is, as it seems, a content dispute rather than the traditional definition of blanking, the template should not be used per Wikipedia:VAND#Warnings. It is likely to be considered a breach of civility, since you're effectively calling the user a vandal. His edit summary in response was also a breach of civility. Likely he lashed out angrily as what he perceived as an attack on him. His characterization of your edits to his page as vandalism also assumes bad faith. If he feels that you are being uncivil to him, he will likely request feedback at WP:WQA. If he thinks that your incivility is extreme, he may ask for help at WP:ANI. If you make a civil, reasonable effort to talk to him about your concerns, you should have nothing to worry about. Occasionally, users are blocked based on misunderstandings, but such blocks tend to be brief and if your behavior is well within guidelines should be successfully appealed. At this point, obviously, tensions are high between you. WP:NPA suggests, when possible, ignoring the behavior and CIVIL suggests, where appropriate, apologizing. If I were in your position, I'd move on to talk about your concerns. And if the two of you can't reach consensus, I'd move on to some of the recommended venues in the dispute resolution policy. If there are only two of you, you might seek out an opinion at WP:3O (read the directions there carefully, though, as improperly formatted requests are often removed). You might also ask at Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard or Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if one of those seems appropriate to you. First though, especially given this rocky development in the conflict, I would strongly advise that you make a good effort to at least restore cordial conversation. If you two are also struggling with civility issues, that's going to complicate the conversation for any contributors who choose to weigh in. I'll go check out the image now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC) With respect to the image, I fixed one field in your FUR (Replaceable? wouldn't render. I replaced with Replaceability.) I'm afraid that's as much as I can offer. :) As you know, images are not my usual area. The place to go with that is Media Copyright Questions; that's where I go to ask mine. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Thank you very much. I already did the WP:3O yesterday so we will see where that goes. I think maybe my main issue is that the issue is already being openly discussed. I had already responded to the users questions however the user took to reverting and not discussion other than via comments added to the end of citations as well as the little comment in the "edit summery". When I tried to bring the discussion to the user via their talk page, and that still didn't work, it went unread and the revisions were again made with no discussion. At this point I thought about the 3RR rule but I chose against it as the "When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page." comment on the Template:Uw-delete2 seemed to make more sense, also along with the "Please do not add commentary..." part of the Template:uw-npov2. (And I thought removing warnings were against Wikipedia guidelines/policy) I guess really the bottom line is how many times should I revert the edits or remove the users comments from citations. And how many time must I be asked to "prove it" when the user shows no good faith in "proving" their side of the issue. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Removing warnings is okay, though that is a very common misunderstanding. :) See Wikipedia:TALK#User_talk_pages. For future reference, when you reach the point that the conversation has stalemated with another contributor, that's the time to reach out to bring others into the conversation. If one editor continues to revert against the consensus of multiple editors, then you have a disruptive editor. When an editor is reverting the opinion of a single other contributor, you have an edit war, where both are likely to be regarded as at fault. The difference here is community input and consensus. I'm glad you put it at 3O, and I hope you get good feedback. You can never tell--look how little response I've gotten to my proposals about the image use guideline--but if you don't get a response at one board, try another. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC) It is funny you mention bringing it elsewhere. I tired that with another topic and told it was wrong and that I was Canvassing. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC) That's why I recommended going elsewhere if you don't get a response. :) You want to avoid seeming to "ask the other parent," but sometimes all you get is crickets, so to speak. Neutral advisement of an issue of concern is generally not regarded as a problem, though. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Thank you Thank you for the message on my talk page regarding copyrights and my contributions. You have helped to clarify the problem for me, and I greatly appreciate it. More that that, you have done as you said you would and have fixed or removed the copyright violations in the articles I have written. Thank you for this. Jordan Contribs 15:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Page for deletion Hi Moonriddengirl, I accidentally created a template under the wrong name, and I was wondering if you could delete it. It's located here. Thanks for your help, αЯβιτЯαЯιŁΨθ (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Done.:) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Thanks. If your curious, the template is now located here. αЯβιτЯαЯιŁΨθ (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Copyright dispute Hi, MoonG. Is there an appropriate noticeboard for a dispute over a copyright violation, or can you help or advise me? I reworked a section of an article which I consider to be a copyright violation. However, someone reverted my edit. What's the next step? Do I treat this like any other content dispute, negotiating on the article talk page? Thanks. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Well, the appropriate noticeboard is WP:CP. :) It seems you have two options, looking only at that edit summary and not investigating the matter myself. First, you could revise problematic material. Two, you could use {{copyvio}} and list it at WP:CP while you discuss the issue. If I went that route, I'd only blank the affected section, though, by closing it off with </div>. Copyrighted text should not remain displayed while the matter is resolved. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC) How do you close something off with </div>? (And is there documentation somewhere about all the commands starting with "div" and all the other stuff, like "font" and all that?) Thanks. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Question 2: no clue. Question 1, from the copyviocore template itself, "By default, this template blanks all other content on the page. To limit blanking of the text, as for a copyright violation in a single section, place </div> at the end of the suspected copyvio area." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Oh, I get it: you put {{subst:copyvio}} at the beginning of the part you want to blank, and </div> at the end of it. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Yes. Unless you can simply revise the text and have done with it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC) October 2008 Ok, thanks for the info, please don't delete my page it's VERY important to me. Thanks :D - Alec2011 (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC) update I haven't heard anything from anyone since I sent the wikihonchos the e-mail I cc'd you. I've started a new job and am dog sick, so didn't fast-track anything as I didn't have time to follow what happens. Sorry. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Optimal Flexible Architecture Deletion I disagree that the deletion was "CSD G11: Blatant Advertising". I created the article after searching wikipedia for OFA and finding nothing. Now I freely admit that the article I created was not complete. I only wrote a few sentences and gave a few links to show that the term actually exists. I had planned to go back and expand the article but have not had a chance yet. In essence OFA is very much like the FHS and hence I think it warrants an article. Regards Thomas d stewart (talk) 11:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC) There was only one sentence in the article: "Optimal Flexible Architecture or OFA is the recommended way Oracle lays it software and data on disk in various directories" and both links were to subpages of download.oracle.com. The deletion was not meant to challenge that the product is notable enough for an article, but only to indicate that the article that was created was not encyclopedic, but seemed rather engineered to promote its subject. The only sentence certainly seems promotional, lacking context. Since you plan to expand the article, I've restored it and tagged it with "under construction". Though you've been around for a while, your contributions are not heavy, so I'll just suggest here that you take a look at the notability guidelines for companies and products so that you can make sure to verify notability to avoid further complications. Apologies if you are already well-familiar with that guideline. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Soundvisions1 Hi. I'm having what seems to me incredible and unnecessary difficulties communicating with Soundvisions1. He doesn't seem to pay any attention to what I say to him, and refuses to answer my questions. I really don't understand, because otherwise he seems a reasonable, rational and sensible person. For example, I have pointed out to him that citations that say "Roger Fisher, Interview, 2008" and "Fossen, Steve" are not useful, and have asked him to supply more information. His first response was to classify my request for more information as "nonsense", his second response was to put vandalism warnings on my talk page. Now he is simply refusing to pay any attention to my questions, which, I suppose, is an improvement, but is still not satisfactory. I don't know how to communicate with this person. Can you make some suggestions please? Thanks in anticipation of your advice. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Hi. I've received your note, and I'll read through and see if I can be of assistance in just a moment. I'm in the middle of addressing a copyright concern, but it should not take long. (Though it may take me a bit to look at your situation, as I usually think things through before responding.) I'll drop a "talkback" on your talk page when I've replied. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Thank you for the quick response. It's nearly midnight here and I'm off to bed, so please reply at your convenience. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Thanks. :) Obviously I am somewhat aware of the situation, given this above. Soundvisions has been assisting with an image deletion document I'm (attempting) to work on. (Typical Wikipedia fashion, getting attention when needed is not easy.) I note from his contribution list, here, that he has not been very active on Wikipedia for the past day or so. I am not myself sure how to interpret his last response to you, but in the absence of other information I would be inclined to take it as a suggestion that comments should be made at the Heart talk page. This seems like a good idea anyway, since he has requested a third opinion on your dispute, and it will be helpful to a contributor responding to those to see a brief, succinct statement of your side. My suggestion, in response to your question as to how to communicate with him, would be to state your opinions succinctly on the talk page of the article. At this point, I would drop all references to the misunderstanding about communications on user talk pages and stick with the essentials about the debate. It may be that the two of you will not be able to reach consensus on the issues, but if that's the case any responders from 3O may be able to help break your stalemate. Meanwhile (and this one is always hard for me, but I've gotten better at it), I'd recommend keeping in mind that conversations on Wikipedia develop at unpredictable rates. They can move like lightening or creep like glaciers. I have had better luck with placing concise (well, almost concise. Concise isn't in my vocabulary) notes for people and then walking away. If they respond quickly, great. But it's not unlikely that it will take them a day or two to get back. I usually prompt with a brief and friendly reminder that I'm hoping to continue the conversation only after they've been regularly editing without response for several hours. Sometimes, I'll wait a day or so. Meanwhile, as a general note, comments in references like "What interview? With whom? When? About what?" are probably not a good idea. As Wikipedia:Dispute resolution points out, we should not "carry on a dispute on the article page itself." In that case, you probably would want to use a template, probably one of these or these. In the case of the source you believe contains factual errors, we have {{dubious}}, the purpose of which is (in part) "To alert editors that additional sources need to be found, to ascertain which of the conflicting views in the dispute is more authoritative." With that one, you're meant to open a specific section on the talk page explaining the conflict. We don't have a specific template that I'm aware of for a source that is insufficiently detailed to meet WP:V. I'm not sure what I would use in that case: {{verify source}}? {{page number}}? Probably one of those. As I suggested above, if nobody comes from 3O, which is a possibility, you might want to seek further assistance at another venue. I hope that the two of you will be able to establish a line of communication, perhaps even to the point if that happens of agreeing where best to seek a resolution to your stalemate. I have found him reasonable to deal with—indeed, very helpful with respect to my project. :) The two of you seem to have hit a snag in communication, but it doesn't look insurmountable to an outsider. I've seen people recover from much, much worse. Good luck, and please let me know if I can clarify any of this or if I may be of assistance. (Except with respect to the actual dispute, of course. Given my involvement here, I think it most appropriate for me to remain a neutral outsider.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC) I was referred to this thread. While awaiting third party results/response/action I have added tag(s) to the article page per suggestion. I have also added a new subsection: NPOV / Third Party Opinions. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC) That should be helpful. :) I hope you won't have to wait too long for feedback. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Wow! You're good at this, aren't you! I've found your response very helpful, and I very much appreciate the effort you have gone to to address the matter so thoroughly. I will make use of your suggestions. Many thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC) List of television stations in North America by media market please see the copyvio at List of television stations in North America by media market to see if it should be lumped in with the one at List of TV markets and major sports teams in the United States. Thanks for all of your hard work! --User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 22:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC) It looks like it probably should. I'm still seeking definitive guidance on the sports team article, although the sole response I've received suggests deletion is appropriate. I think I'll probably have to check with our lawyer. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC) I wouldn't say that the list of stations in North America is taken care of, someone just removed the North American info until we could get a resolution on those markets, they still want to have that info in the article. The talk page at that article has some pretty convincing arguments as to why the DMA markets wouldn't be copyrighted: they are published in the Federal Register.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 11:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC) I'm still working on my response to the article talk page. (I'm reviewing AN in crafting it.) But I'd be very grateful if you would respond to me on your article talk page. I don't do the bouncing from page to page thing well. :) I've watchlisted your page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Request that You Me At Six is unprotected I've requested the article which you protected and deleted, You Me At Six is unprotected to allow me to create the page. As the protecting admin I felt I should inform you and seek your opinion on the matter. See the request here Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_unprotection If possible, please reply to this message on my talk page. Cheers, Cabe6403 (Talk•Please Sign my guest book!) 11:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Replied at user's talk. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Cheers for the info, much appreciated Cabe6403 (Talk•Please Sign my guest book!) 14:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Hi Moonriddengirl. I've taken a quick look at this, but it may be quicker for you to sort out. The current article at You Me At Six is a derivative[2] of the userfied copy and needs a history merge. The histories are at User:RWorange/You Me and User:Cabe6403/current2. Interested? -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Yes, I'll merge them. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Thanks Just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your input here. Since it's not my area, I particularly value your input. I had to read the thing today to figure out how to tag an image for lacking proper permission! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC) You're welcome. I think it's a very good guide. Stifle (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Into the Fire (album) Hi, I noticed that you just lowered the class rating for this article from B to C. I am currently reviewing the article for GA status, and I was wondering if you could let me know what problems you see with the article. This is only my second review of an album, so I would appreciate it if you could let me know what I should be looking for from a WikiProject Albums perspective. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Happy to. I made note at the assessment subpage, but I know those things are easily lost when multiple projects are boxed. :) The problem from our project's perspective is the lack of technical personnel in the personnel section (engineers, etc.) I could add those myself, but our project is one of the few that requests that reviewers not be major contributors to the article. My general approach is to do nothing at the article that I wouldn't tick the "minor edit" box for. :) I made a note of it at the album talk page, where the editor requested assistance in copy-editing (presumably at your direction). (Of course, he can add that information himself, also.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC) P.S. Just to add context, this information is available at AMG. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Perfect. This will help a lot in the future as I review more album articles. Thank you very much. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC) All Female Bands List (30) Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations I've seen around doing some copyright-related work. Any chance you could take a look at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations? I can't ask for much, seeing as how I pop in once or twice a week and deal with only a few each time. Even if you could a few at a time as well, it would be very helpful. :) --Iamunknown 16:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC) I'll give it a shot, but I already dedicate several hours a day to keeping on top of WP:CP, and I fear copyright burn-out, so I may not make it part of the routine. (In fact, that's what I was working on when I got your note. :)) But I'll be happy to particularly look at some of the oldest ones to see if I can knock some down. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC) I understand. I'd prefer you not burn out. :) I'm trying to get back into maintenance work, but only a little bit at a time, after burning out myself. --Iamunknown 16:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC) So far, I'm finding it less of a challenge than CP. :) I ought to be able to knock it down a little. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Amber Rives Hello.I see that you deleted the Amber Rives article that I contributed because it did not differ enough from the original piece.But were there not any reliable sources?If not,what is considered a reliable source?--Usher4Life (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Hi. There is a full guideline here on what makes a reliable source: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. More information is available at our verifiability policy. Essentially, you're looking for professional publications with a history of monitoring accuracy. Newspapers, journals, major news sites or webpages, for instance. These can't be connected to the individual. User submitted content is not acceptable, although some professional blogs may be. All of the sources in the article were user submitted content except this, which is not a professionally managed website and hence is unusable. In order to overcome the concerns that led to deletion at AfD, you should look for professionally published content. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Image:Waynecoyne.jpg I need another set of eyes on this - it looks more like a frame grab than an photo. Perhaps it was video taken by the uploader from the stage and then frame grabed. [[Image:Waynecoyne.jpg]]. It is also not being used in any articles so it can probably be removed anyway. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC) If it were listed under the non-free content criteria, its being orphaned would be reason enough to tag it for deletion. But since it's been released, it's not. That's a tough one for me. :) I'm not a strongly visual person, but I understand you are. Why not take a look at Image:Michaelivins.jpg, Image:Stevendrozd.jpg & Image:Kliphscurlock.jpg? These are all uploaded by the same user and claim to have been made within a day of each other. Do these look like photos to you or screen captures? If they look like screen caps and you think they may be an issue, you should probably bundle the whole lot of them to WP:PUI for investigation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Oh, p.s., since you may not have run into this yet. :) You can link to an image without it displaying the image by dropping a colon in front: [[:Image:Waynecoyne.jpg]] renders as Image:Waynecoyne.jpg. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Re Barnstar Hi Moonriddengirl: Thank you very much. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Palo Nice work on this article. On nl.wikipedia, where I do most of my editting, it would have just been thrown away. Magalhães (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Thank you. :) I appreciate your bringing up the problem! I'd rather take the time to write a new stub on a notable topic than to display a copyvio. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Redirecting a page to an old redirect Hi. I want to move Alright/Time back to Alright (Supergrass song). How does this work if the latter is already a redirect? Would you be able to move the page for me please? Thanks, TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 22:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Hi. :) I believe from my reading of Help:Move that you could have done that one, but since I know that I could and since from the songs wikiproject it looks uncontroversial, I went ahead and did. Please be sure to update the wikilinks as appropriate. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Thank you for doing that. --TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 13:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Hello Your input would be greatly appericated in the List of television stations in North America by media market conversation on 2008Olympian's talk page and on the talk page for List of television stations in North America by media market. - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 11, 2008 @ 06:18 06:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Image/TOC placement Hello, I am currently having a disagreement with another user over my realignment of the opening image and TOC on the Mod (lifestyle) article, and need your advice. I have performed these sort of realignments before, and always felt that policy backed me up. However, I cannot now find the policy I previously read on this matter. Am I incorrect in believing that right-facing opening images should be moved to the left? Is this something I dreamt up, 'cause I cannot find a policy for it now. Your thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Hi. :) As you know, MOS:IMAGE#Images says, "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image." It does say that "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text", however I would take the more definitive first statement over the less definitive "often preferable" myself when it comes to placing the first image. So in general I'd say you're right, but in this case I would go with the other version. This would also keep compliance with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Consistency, which says, "It is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one guideline-defined style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so" and "If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style." I don't see any policy that specifically supports realignment, but I can't say you dreamed it up, because things change around here. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Yes, I am only hoping that the policy changed at some point, which is why I cannot find the page I read previously---this was a year or so ago, after all---and that I did not, in fact, dream it up! Thanks for your advice. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Unique features Sorry to bother you, but since you seem to be running WP:CP... Unique features is a copyvio from [3]. The author claims permission on talk page, so normally one would simply add copyvio template and add it to WP:CP. However, this article has also been prodded, which in itself sounds quite sensible actually. {{Copyvio}} prevents the author from making improvements to the article, which it needs to avoid the prod. It will probably be deleted in a few days anyway, but since I'm still trying to get a sense how working with WP:SCV really goes, I would like to know how this kind of articles are handled. – Sadalmelik ☎ 19:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Well, that's an interesting one. :) I'd go ahead and list it at copyvio, but place the copyvio template beneath the PROD. Everything on the page except the PROD will then be blanked. When leaving the "nothanks" note that the copyvio template generates to paste on the page of the contributor, I would also leave a note explaining that the PROD template may still be removed, though the other contents of the page should not be edited. I would also tell him that even if he follows through with the permissions process by the supplied procedures, he will need to consider the concerns raised in the PROD and address those. If you weigh a "PROD" against a copyvio concern, a copyvio is going to win every time, because anyone can challenge a PROD and have the article restored, but articles that violate copyright should not be. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Thanks – I have done as you suggested. – Sadalmelik ☎ 08:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC) that RfC ... heya Moonriddengirl - i decided to come here instead of bringing it up on the already-overloaded page where the RfC is going on - i hope that's okay. i just now noticed the reason you gave when you listed the RfC - "reason=Should genre be removed as a field from Template:Infobox Album to reduce edit warring?" - and since that's what's presented to the wider wikipedia public, i wanted to ask you to consider changing it to something more accurate. the RfC is actually proposing the reinstatement of the genre field, not its removal; and edit warring is only one of the reasons people have stated for not wanting it reinstated. i feel like a more accurate and neutral entry in the "reason" slot would be "reason=Should the genre field be reinstated in the Template:Infobox Album?" technically i guess anyone can amend the reason listed, but i feel it's most fitting for you to do it, if you agree; and in my limited experience with RfCs the change wouldn't make the RfC go kablooey. thanks for thinking about it. Sssoul (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Hi. :) Absolutely okay. You are more than welcome. (I've found you extremely pleasant to talk to about this, as far as that's concerned.) My understanding was that the change was made to deal with edit warring--that's what I grokked when I first heard of it, anyway--but I certainly do see that other objections exist. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Please let me know if I've accidentally redirected the discussion to the main page or something. :) I'm trying to get a copyright problem handled before cooking supper...which I should have started 15 minutes ago. Eep! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC) thanks & brava! it looks good to me so far - now we have to see if the bot gizmo picks up the change the next time it makes the rounds. i'm simultaneously experimenting with an RfC of my own to see how to make the change take effect - maybe refreshing the timestamp is called for as well? ie replacing the five tildes with five new ones ... i'm just guessing about that part, though. and yeah, it's a good conversation, even if it *is* taking up 3/4ths of the page! 8) Sssoul (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC) update: cool, your amendment worked, leads to the right place, etc - you left the question mark off the end of it, but that's easily repaired when you have time. meanwhile my experiment with my own RfC caused it to vanish from the list :[ so off i go to see if i can coax it back. Sssoul (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC) another day, another "helpful" suggestion: do you think it would help newcomers navigate the discussion if the "RfC Comments" header were moved to right under your "Statement in favour of ..." ? it seems like people keep missing the discussion below - maybe on purpose 8) - but it still seems worth keeping the comments in the "comments" section if possible, and moving the header is the simplest way to achieve that. Sssoul (talk) 08:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Hi. :) I wonder if my "statement in favour of" should perhaps be moved into the RfC comments section? I'm a bit chary of such a sweeping change, though, since it will instantly make the whole conversation about the placement of conversation following mine absolutely confusing. :) I worry that moving everything after mine will seem to give mine more authority than it deserves, and so far nobody has put up a specific rebuttal anyway, so it might just as well be clumped with the others. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC) [pondering the logistics of that ... ] you mean moving the "RfC Comments" header up to above your statement and just removing the = signs from around the title of yours? yeah, that seems like it would work just as well. the comments following yours are already all out of any kind of order, so i don't think i'd worry about that too much 8) Sssoul (talk) 12:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Need Help Dear, Hope u r fine enough. Dear i m editing and creating articles on wiki for a long time but i dont have any right till now. Please tell me if this is automatic process for becoming an administrator or i need to fill any application. Regards Sameer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sameergoswami (talk • contribs) 07:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Hi. There is a documenting describing what administrators on Wikipedia do and how to become one here. In brief, the tools used by administrators are granted after a community discussion where a candidates contributions are analyzed to see if (a) the candidate can be trusted with the tools and (b) the candidate needs them. If you are considering requesting adminship, you will probably want to read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. That gives you an idea of what some people look for and will help you evaluate if you are prepared. If you have any questions about those documents, please let me know. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)