User talk:Rklawton

Welcome from Ravedave

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions (the lizard images are great!). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

Remember to place any articles or images you create into a category so we don't get orphans.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome. -Ravedave 18:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Response

Hi Dave and thanks for the information. As you might have guessed, I'm a frequent visitor and new contributor. I'm keeping track of my contributions, and I'll do what I can to go back and conform my articles to standards as I get the hang of things.

I'm a photographer, so my primary contribution will be images. In some cases, I have images for articles that haven't yet been written. For example, I have photos of critters that have no matching article yet. As a result, I'm creating an article stub, providing illustrations, and hoping someone will follow behind me and fill in the academic stuff. Of course, I'm making sure that each article is linked from a proper parent, but I haven't got then hang of categories yet...

I'm also a skydiver, so I'm going to re-work the skydiving articles over time. Skydiving should have hundreds of related articles including rigging, competition, dropzones, world records, and biographies. It's the off-season now, so why not?

Like you, I'm also a software developer, business analyst, and project manager. I also enjoy traveling and have visited dozens of countries - including your favorite: Costa Rica. I watched Arenal erupt my first night in country. Very cool.

Lastly, you look familiar. Do I know you?

No problem, you are actually the 1st person I have welcomed who has actually stuck around and kept editing. If you have any Qs feel free to ask, I check my talk page every day. You can always use the 'user contributions' link on the left to see what you have edited. Good photographers are always welcome at wikipeida, your lizard pictures are great. I'll check your contriubtions occasionally to see if there is anythign I can add to the articles, but a stub with a picture is a great way to start an article. If possible try and include one wiki-link and a category if possible. Good luck on the parachuting area, hopefully you can clean it up enough to be a Wikipedia:Featured article. Arenal was awsome, I love the hotsprings. What a great country, I just wish I had gotten more wikipedia-worthy pics. Heh every time I go on vacation now I always make sure to scan the main articles before I leave to see if there are pictures I should take. I have no idea if I know you, if you have spent time in MN it is a possibility otherwise, probably not. :) - Ravedave 18:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You look like a skydiver I know. Thanks for the encouragement. I keep a log of photos I need to take when I travel, too. I've got some down time, so I'm working through my Russian images from 2005. I haven't explored the non-English language portions of the site, but I'm guessing I should see if my photos might be of use on those pages, too. Any tips on working with articles in other languages?

No problem. And hey you know what, just keep adding the articles, I'll just make sure to cleanup behind you. I don't have any current project, so that will be my project, categorizign and stub catorizing your articles. Working with forign language sites can be hard. I would just add the pictures to the english articles. I know in many other languages they have Wikipedia:WikiProjects simply devoted to getting information from the english and other language wikis. You might want to try and hook up with a wikipedia who knows russian (or whatever language) that can add meaningful captions. You should ask at the Wikipedia:Village pump. Oh and what tpye of camera & lens are you using? Your animal pictures have great color & sharpness. -Ravedave 18:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer to help! I've made sure that each article is linked to by some other article, so categorizing shouldn't be hard. It's just not something I thought about when I created them. There's only a few. I've got friends who speak pretty much all the wiki languages. I'll see if I can recruit them to help. That's a secondary project, though.

You can find the camera/lens information under each image's Metadata (Show extended details). My long lens is a Promaster Spectrum 7 XR. My wide angle is a Canon Zoom Lens EF-S 10-22mm. My DV camera is a Sony DCR-PC100, but it's just about worn out, so I probably won't have it much longer. I shot hundreds of hours of video and thousands of images with it, so some of them will probably turn up here. Rklawton 19:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Maps n Categories

Where do I go to find/edit those really nice geographic maps? You know, the ones of the world or of a country where the appropriate state/region is colored red? I'd like to add one to an article I started on the Ryazan Oblast.

Could you take a look at the chain of categories for Ryazan? I think I screwed the pooch on this one trying to figure out how categories work. The political divisions work like this: Russia->Ryazan Oblast->Ryazan. (Country, State, City). However, that's just the polical side. To specify political divisions, I think political categories might go something like this: Russia->Oblasts in Russia->Ryazan Oblast->Cities in Ryazan Oblast. In this case, Ryazan Oblast would include two items: 1) an article about the oblast, and 2) category for the oblast. Have I got this right? In this way, the Ryazan Oblast category would list subcategories like "Cities in..." as well as "Industries in...", "Ethnic groups in...", etc. Am I catching on?

Robert, FYI the best way to ask questions is on my message page so I get the "you have a message" banner. I took the liberty of splitting this into a new section too for clarity. Also dont forget to sign your name with the four tildes so it puts in the date.

Ok maps. Maps can be a pain in the ass. Anything that is a work of the US government is free to use so the CIA factbook is one place to start. Its sort of a crapshoot when it comes to other countries. Poke around in the russia articles, if you find one with the right liscence you should be able to edit it and fill in the area you need. Good luck on that one.

Categories can be a pain in the ass. They are sort of confusing when you are making them becuase you can put text at the top but the bottom part is automatic etc. I think you might be overcomplicating the categories thing. I didn't quite follow you. I woldnt make too specific of a category unless there are a couple of articles. So go ahead and leave all the artlces about cities, stuff in cities in the Ryazan oblast in the ryazan oblast category. Also when categorizing as articles that is are same name as the category do it as such: Category:blah|* so that the article shows up at the top of the category. -Ravedave 06:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh and I forgot. The article looks like it is categoried correctly as of now... -Ravedave 06:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

...and I forgot again. If you want to get rid of the little table ofcontents box at the top of short pages such as Ryazan & your talk page use __NOTOC__ -Ravedave 06:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Giraffes

Hey can you take a look at your Nubian Giraffe article? you list it as the 'reticulated giraffe' on the nubian griaffe page, but on the giraffe page there is a seperate entry for reticulated giraffes. I am not a giraffe expert so I can't tell what your pictures are of :) -Ravedave 06:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Giraffe Gaff... I relied on the zoo's signage for identification, so I'm sure the original image is labeled correctly (it's cheaper and easier than going on safari). I'll check the links and re-locate as needed. That's one thing I'm super fussy about - labels. For example, I've got tons of flower photos (another favorite subject), but I won't post any of them until I can get a botanist to identify them for me. Oddly enough, I don't actually know any botanists. Fortunately, it's not one of my priorities.

OK, the label I used in my stub (both Latin and common) is precisely what was used on the zoo's signage. The confusion comes from the parent article that I didn't write. The mix-up appears to be with the common names. I gave precedent to the Latin name and so made the link that way. I’ll print the article and share it with the kritter keeper on my next visit (next week if I can get some sunshine). For all I know, the zoo has old signs. Alternatively, he/she might make some editorial suggestions for the article.Rklawton 07:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. One thing that you could do is use the wikipedia: village pump to make sure all your flower pictures are correct. You can upload them all (good ones only!) and post a gallery to the village pump asking people to verify theier identity, or correct it. -Ravedave 06:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll check it out. I've got a lot of purdy flower pictures, but I suspect that they're all pretty common and not worth an expert's time. I frame and sell them to the home-decoration types.Rklawton 07:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

If you can't figure out which giraffe is on the Nubian Giraffe page I am going to need to put it up for deletion. I thought I'd give you another chance before I nominate it. -Ravedave 19:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Whee, I fixed it! Thanks for keeping on my about this. A bit of net-searching, and I had it all sorted out. Rklawton 19:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Categories and external links

Please do not create articles that are nothing more than an external link and a category: Wikipedia is not a web directory. All these links you have created are now candidates for speedy deletion. -- Francs2000 22:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Parachuting

User:Rklawton/Sandbox looks like a pretty dang good outline to me. I would like to see which articles you are planning on writing though, I can't really tell from the list, maybe bold them? Some of the topics look like they might be hard to extend beyond a paragraph or two. You might end up with a bunch of merge tags if you write some of the smaller ones. World records might be better as list of world records (maybe it could be a featured list too). I'm excited for history of military parachuting (Band of Borthers is one of my favorite series :) ). Don't forget to dig up some good reference material before you start. Oh and figuring out how to categorieze this stuff would probably be good too (remember to try to have more than 3-4 articles in a category) -Ravedave 00:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Bold- good idea.

Merge- I figure if I start with high level articles with and use sections we'll find it easier (less hassle) to split the sections off into their own articles later if needed rather than the other way 'round. Some of the articles already have a lot of military history added in, so I'm not sure how much work they'll need. On the other hand, articles exist all over the place regarding people, battles, and military units that all relate back to military parachuting, and I'll see what I can do to make sure these links and categories appear when appropriate.

Categories- good point. I think we can turn level I and level II into categories, but I doubt they'll need to run any deeper.

Question- how do I cite an external reference? I looked for examples, but didn't find any or managed not to to "see" them somehow. Does wikipedia subscribe to a specific style guide (MLA, etc.)? Rklawton 02:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Featured_articles for example and Wikipedia:Cite -Ravedave 04:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've left some comments at Talk:Parachuting. I agree with Ravedave that most of the smallest articles should be merged though(no need for a separate article for low and high speed mals for example.) Skydiver 09:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Hey Rklawton -

Why did you edit my changes from the Appanoose County page? My changes were factual. I am not sure what the point of Wikipedia is if you cannot add/edit for factual info. There was nothing slanderous to my changes whatsoever.

If you are user:207.28.70.253, then I assumed that since all your other edits that day were bogus, then this one likely was, too. Rklawton 01:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what's happening, but those "other" edits did not come from me, nor this computer.

No problem. I changed them back. Dial-up or proxy-users often "share" an IP address even within short periods of time without any indication to the user. Rklawton 20:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Jackson

I assume you didn't intend to do so, but your recent edit to this page ended up removing the majority of the article. This might have been because of a bad connection (the Wiki has been a bit slow today), or maybe just hitting a wrong key at the wrong time. I thought I should let you know, if you wanted to go back and try editing it again. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 03:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It had to have been the connection. My machine is multi-tasking. Sorry 'bout that. I'd only meant to make a two word edit! Rklawton 04:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Rice

Thanks for the speedy removal. I was just talking to someone and we found this website Wikipedia Watch and were having a good laugh at it. He didn't believe me when I said that there are always people watching and bad stuff gets deleted quickly. Thanks again. --Snafuu 01:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Powell

Thanks for the suggestion! (don't quite know why I didn't think of that :). I've now gone ahead and added a ref. Regards, Mikker ^... 21:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

129.120.168.51

Hi,

You reverted 129.120.168.51's second edit to Kazaam and warned him/her with the edit summary "blanking (again)." Did you actually check that edit? It wasn't blanking; it was addition of a quote. (Whether the quote was actually from the movie is a separate question...) I just don't want people getting warned/blocked if they've actually started to make real edits.

Hbackman 05:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

My bad. I didn't read carefully enough. I've read through so many vandalized articles tonight, that my eyes must be blurring. Perhaps I should call it a night and start fresh tomorrow. I reverted it back. Rklawton 05:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Oprah Winfrey

Sorry if I changed it the wrong direction--I was in the process of undoing some vandalism by an anonymous editor, and one of the changes from the IP in question was the change I reverted. Given that the anonymous IP is a proxy server, it's entirely possible that I confused vandalism with a legitimate change. --EngineerScotty 17:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Happens to me, too. Rklawton 17:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Taq-e Bostan

Thank you for your comments and offer, I can totally utilize your help in article. I have to thank you one more time for polishing Sassanid article that page took me about 3 months to complete for its current status. By the way I finalized Taq-e Bostan's page, you may want to take a look at it. Amir85 13:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Aaron Burr and Dick Cheney

Because two sitting Vice-Presidents shot people, albeit under different circumstances, the reference to Dick Cheney does belong in the Hamilton-Burr duel article.

I disagree. --DanielCD 04:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Me too. The above comment was unsigned but contributed by [User:Steelbeard1]. I'm rather hoping you can take the issue up with him. Rklawton 05:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There's a very handy rule for dealing with just this sort of time-wasting nonsense. It's called the 3RR. Consensus and plain sense are overwhelmingly against him. If he reverts more than three times in 24 hrs, he can be blocked, and I'd be happy to do the honors if it happens. --DanielCD 05:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I have much to learn (signed) "Grasshopper" Rklawton 05:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it already has happened, but I'm not one to be anal in following the rules. As long as he's behiving now I'll leave it be. --DanielCD 05:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. I agree, good behaviour is all that really matters. Rklawton 05:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Doroud

Iran's historical sites divide into two preliminary categories : Pre-Islamic and post-Islamic. Fars (Pars) is one of the few provinces that has enjoyed a splendour life before and after Islamic invasion. It hosts numerous breathtaking monuments, gardens, mosques and etc. Its capital, Shiraz, was once a true eden on earth. For mostly Pre-Islamic monuments Khuzestan (Susa,...), Hamadan Province and its capital Hamadan should not be forgotten. If you are interested in Sassanids, Takht-i-Suleiman is a true masterpiece.

For a more Islamic-related monuments, Isfahan Province with its capital Isfahan, has a lot to offer. These are just a fraction of Iran's national treasures ! there are alot more. I hope this was helpful. Best wishes.

Amir85 22:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Travelled

• In English, it has two L's. Best wishes, Lion King 15:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it your intention, then, to rewrite this resource into British English? Rklawton 15:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Why the hostility? Lion King 15:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No hostility here. Why the change in spelling? Rklawton 16:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Because it's correct English. Lion King 16:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Please read: Wikipedia:Manual of Style before making additional edits. Rklawton 16:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Right, so when writing about an Englishman, who spoke English, wrote English, I'm supposed to use "American" English? Whatever that is. If you wish to continue this nonsensical debate, pay me the compliment of coming onto my page. However, I'd rather it finish here, as I have no interest in the childish dilution of my language.Lion King 16:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

As you wish. Please keep in mind that your bias against American form of English isn't consistant with Wikipedia's policies. According to the Wikipedia style guide, an article's language usage should remain consistant. In this case, the article is written using British English, and I stand corrected on that point. Rklawton 17:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Pat Tilman

Sorry I was rude. get that way when I've been drinking. Thought as an Army veteran you might want to check into this guy Joseph Asiegbo. 132.241.245.49 23:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Joe's going to rock in SF. He's got it all, language, age, physical condition, and real-world motivation. Rklawton 01:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

lol I'm just imagining how many girls are going to want him.

seriously a SF and a Prince? holly crap! 132.241.245.49 05:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 14

That's where it is. At the very bottom of the page. --DanielCD 01:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

George Washington

[1] Great edit summary - thanks for brightening my watchlist! :-) FreplySpang (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Global warming

hi -- You're being awfully forgiving with User:65.94.96.42's vandalism. I would escalate through subst:test1-n to subst:test4-n, after which I would put a notice on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and they will be promptly blocked. No reason to spend all day editing back and forth! For a list of template warning messages, see Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace. thanks for the good work! bikeable (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Then what would I do with myself? Rklawton 19:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough -- ya gotta have a hobby! best, bikeable (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverted the revert

Please be a little more careful in making your reverts, you just restored a vandalised page right after I reverted it. -Mulder416 20:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

We were probably working on it at the same time. Which article was it? Rklawton 20:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Umm... Dog. Someone had deleted a huge chunk from the top. -Mulder416 20:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. My pooter's been paging like crazy. I feel like I'm on dial-up. Rklawton 20:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia.com Resembling More and More Urbandictionary.com

I'm glad there are some sensible people left in the world. I would appreciate it if you contributed to the debate over the bias that has pervaded the Cambridge University article. Courier new 22:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the "sensible" part, but thank you. I'll read through the article's talk page. Let me know if there are other resources I should review as well. Rklawton 22:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV

I've delisted User:Franklinpierce1, but please feel free to readd if vandalism reoccurs. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 05:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

And No, you won't have to wait 3 more times. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 05:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

External links

External links often make excellent additional resources and references. When clicked on, however, the user receives no notice that they are leaving Wikipedia. While I am opposed to any notice system that requires even one additional user-click, I strongly favor opening external links in a new browser window (or tab).

There are approximately two schools of though on that subject, and I'm of the other one. I don't want new windows/tabs opened for me as I'm quite capable of opening them myself when needed. Anyway, external links do warn the user even before the click; there's the "external link icon" like this: http://dropzone.com.

Skydiver 09:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Americans category

On the first page of the Jewish American category, it says the category is for those of Jewish ethnicity and descent, it does not say religion. Sammy Davis, Jr. is religously Jewish, but he is not ethnically. Either the Jewish American category page has to change or Sammy Davis, Jr. needs to be removed from the category. 69.218.181.192 03:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That specification you brought to my attention was only recently added to the category - and long after the category was created. It was added after discussion but without consensus. Furthermore, it is not consistent with three other Jewish-American categories: singers, actors, and musicians - none of which contain this limitation. All things considered, I accept your suggestion that we change the category. After all, how can someone not be Jewish-American and yet qualify as a Jewish-American Singer? Thank you for bringing this excellent point to attention. On a side note, I would be very interested in seeing how an "ethnic" Jewish category might sort itself out. Racial categories in general give me pause for concern because it is often difficult to discern and has been abused so often in the past. Rklawton 04:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured Picture Nomination

I thought your picture of the Fiji Banded Iguana is great so I nominated it as a featured picture cantidate. Check out Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Hopefully it makes it! -Ravedave 05:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Good to hear from you on the FPC. Could you try getting the entire subject (or at least as much as possible of it) the next time you do a shoot? If you have to cut part of it, I would like to see a portrait head on. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

Thanks for the suggestion. I footnoted everything quite thoroughly. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you very much for your offer to help clean up articles on Iran. I will contact you soon.
Thanks again. --(Aytakin) | Talk 17:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks also

You were the first person I interacted with on Wikipedia and were gracious enough to admit that the rv you did was incorrect. That let me know I was going to like this community. Looks like I'm here to stay.

Btw, I'm also a former Army guy. 10th Mountain Division. Used to watch you Airborne guys in Jump School at Fort Benning. Coolmojito 04:49 26 February 2006 (PST)

Pavlov's dog picture

Hi, I replied to you on my talk page. /skagedal^[talk] 19:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Filenames

My 2c: How would you search for pictures of anything if all pictures were named like 12335.jpg? Also people with the same camera would run into overlapping file name issues, Ex: my cannon s500 uses names like "IMG_1721.JPG" and so does everyone elses. Your use case and wikipedias use cases are not the same. Relinking files should not be a big deal, assuming it gets done correctly. -Ravedave 23:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point. My filing system renames photos as I download them, so that's not much of an issue for me. However, I can see how it would be an issue for others. I'm not sure I understand your point about searching, though. I search by file number at home. I don't think the wiki software pays any attention to file names on searches, but I could be wrong about that. I think the wiki software searches only associated text. Rklawton 00:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Image search for "Iguana" notice how only the file name is shown. By default Wikimedia commons looks at files names as well. -Ravedave 03:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I looked, but I also saw summary information immediately under the file name. I'm still open minded about this, though. My workaround would be to add the "real" file name in the image's talk page for my own reference. I tested the search, and you are right, both summary and file names are searched. Rklawton 04:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have given this additional consideration. The workaround for me is to add the original file name to the image's talk page. Given the number of images I post in any given week, that's not too inconvenient. The other disadvantages I listed don't seem to be too big a deal - and the search engine really does use file names. Therefore, I've changed my position and fully support (and will use) descriptive file names as recommended. Rklawton 01:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Other leading edgers

Great points about the military being another leading edge technology adapter. Hadn't thought about it, probably because I was an 11 Bravo and the extent of my brush with technology was my good old M-203. I didn't realize that RFID inventory management was a DOD initiative. I'll start digging around and see what other good stuff came out of there. Thanks for the lead. Coolmojito 18:32, 27 February 2006 (PST)

Up until last summer, I taught MIS and related courses at Western Illinois University, so give me a heads up what technology areas interest you. The great thing about professin' is all the reading time I got - contributed to a couple of textbooks, too. Rklawton 20:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

FPS

Thanks for cleaning up that Future Problem Solving article! I was amazed to see that there were so many other FPSers (I started the article with about a paragraph, forgot about it, came back a week later and it was huge!). What is your involvement in FPS?

No involvement - just on vandal patrol and spotted an obvious instance. Rklawton 05:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Original research

Re: please do not include your own research

Silly. Obviously, research of such high quality must be plagiarized. Femto 19:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I felt somewhat abashed about making such a bold claim. I thought I'd go with the more conservative approach. Rklawton 20:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Birth

I didn't add it, I just restored it after it was removed with no reason other than "it was red", it is better to err on the side of caution...ie: just because it's red, doesn't mean it's not notable. While I agree that being a physician doesn't make one notable, there are many physicians who are notable. Perhaps you could raise the question of their notability with the person who originally added the link, but this should be done before removing it. It isn't a requirement to write the article in order for it to be linked, red links actually help people find articles that need to be written. bcatt 02:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If you check the in-line notes for most of the date articles, you'll see it clearly states that no entry should be made unless the article exists first. Next, while I listed redlinking as the primary reason, I also Googled the name and found no clear references to the person in question. That's another good clue that an article isn't going to be written. Next, if you check my user contributions, you'll see that I don't just go around randomly removing material from articles. I'm pretty careful about what I do. You should take the same measures yourself - or at least check with the individual making the change - as you just recommended to me. Since it's clear you had minimal reason to undo my edits, I'll go and revert them now. Please take care in the future with other people's work. Rklawton 02:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

There are no inline notes saying not to add red links to the article, so you really have no place coming down on me for that. I am not psychic, so how was I to know that you did a google search when the only reason you gave was that it was a red link? I had no reason to check your contributions before restoring the name, as the change had nothing to do with you and everything to do with the wikipedia style guidelines that state that red links are perfectly ok and that it is better to have some red links than to not link to a non-existant article that requires writing. I wonder, if before telling me that I should check first to make sure you really were deleting it for being a red link as stated in your edit summary (even though I should be able to rely on the edit summary, unless said summary refers to talk page, or is lacking in detail), if you took any steps to contact the person who added the link in the first place or at least looked for an edit summary related to when the link was added...if you have taken neither of these steps, I would reecommend taking your own advice of taking ones own advice. Taking care was exactly what I was doing...I was trying to ensure that someone potentially notable wasn't deleted before an article could be written by an editor who happens to come along and see the red link and know a thing or two about the subject. (BTW, I also did a google search and he did register, just not in English...there are non-English people who are notable...unfortunately, I am not fluent in anything but English, so I am unable to determine his actual notability...hence why it is a good idea to ask the person who added him why he was added instead of attacking me for trying to preserve information which may be important and may be otherwise lost). Also, taking care was exactly my point in requesting that you contact the person who originally added the link...I restored it because "deleting on the basis of it being red" is not an example of being careful with other people's contributions...please hold yourself to the same standard that you hold others to. You have had no reason to be so haughty and rude to me. bcatt 04:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You can learn from this, or you can blame other people when they come down on you. The choice is yours. I've reviewed every date article between Jan 1 and Nov 30 (I start December in a few minutes), and I'm well aware of the standards for DATE articles. Check March 1 for an example of in-line comments specifying article creation before addition. The fact is, I've left quite a few redlined people in who were indeed noteable and simply required articles. The learning points for you are simple: 1) check before you revert - you didn't, and it's cost you, and 2) accept the criticism when you make a mistake. We all make mistakes, a simple "my bad" is all it takes and everyone moves right along. Rklawton 04:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Newsflash: I wasn't editing March 1, I was editing October 13. October 13 does not contain any inlines about not having red links. Period. I am able to accept criticism when I make a mistake...in fact, I am often the first to recognize and point out my own mistakes. Again, this is an example of where you need to take your own advice. bcatt 04:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

True, October 13 does not contain an in-line comment regarding redlinks. That's why I pointed out March 1st. Alternatively, you can check here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year. I fully understand that you jumped in and reverted an article from a project with which you weren't familiar. It is my hope that through this experience you will learn more about how to properly edit articles included in the Days of the Year project. Rklawton 04:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I was going by the wikipedia manual of style which states that a red link is preferable to no link at all, where an article may someday be written on a notable subject. My suggestion was to check with the original contributor of the link to see on what basis they chose to add the link in the first place instead of deeming it non-notable simply because it is red. I have never seen any recommendation, on any part of wikipedia, that encourages deleting links because they are red. Wikiprojects are great, but they should not be used to create new "rules" that clash with the universal style guide, I have seen this kind of thing cause problems elsewhere on other types of topics as well. bcatt 05:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That is a very good point. However, I'm not willing to go against the consensus established within the project’s talk page. Any changes based upon the arguments you’ve presented above should first be addressed there. Rklawton 05:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. I will take a closer look at the related talk pages when I am operating on more than 3 1/2 hours of sleep. bcatt 05:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: your recent reversion

"rv edits by someone trying to get a grip"

I chuckled. Humor in edit summaries is always appreciated. Thanks, and cheers! :) --Ashenai 15:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Template substitution by MarkSweep

Because this is being done by many people (it's a process know as subst'ing, if you don't know) in preparation for the removal of userboxes from Template: space Cynical 15:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Does this apply to categories, too? 'Cause MarkSweep deleted a category from my user page, too. Rklawton 15:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, POV-related user categories are frowned upon for the same reason as templates - they allow 'vote stuffing' in discussions (e.g. if a Freemasonry-related article comes up for deletion, a user could look up a list of all the users in and email them all asking them to vote in the deletion discussion (resulting in a flood of people simply voting 'Keep' without actually considering the merits of the article or offering any reasons for keeping it Cynical 15:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. Main Stream Media is currently debating whether or not to publish reporter's/editors affiliations (other than just stock ownership) in order to maintain transparency in reporting. In short, consumers should know who is providing the spin on an article. This is considered a good idea by all except the reporters themselves who want to maintain the illusion they are fair and balanced. It's curious that many of our editors wish to self-identify, but then there's vote stuffing. Rather than force people to hide and maintain secret lists (knowledge is preferable to ignorance), a simple policy change that requires self-identified POV editors to recuse themselves from votes in their area of interest would accomplish your worthy objectives. First, it would discourage user boxes, and second, it would reduce vote stuffing; 50 POV votes would count as 0. On a related note, I avoid the freemasonry related articles for these very reasons. I'd rather have a neutral person edit these articles to ensure fair and thorough treatment. Rklawton 16:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Displaying POVs via userboxes will still be allowed - for the valid 'identification of bias' reasons you indentified - they just won't be allowed as TEMPLATES (ie using the underlying formatting would be allowed, but calling a template [the 'what links here' can be used for the same vote-stuffing as a category) Cynical 17:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)