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.
talk page header
'Cat in rabbitish ears celebrating New Years' I wish you happy holidays, whichever. ツ
You are aware we don't put this up routinely? It is kept for talk pages which have been vandalised. It's not needed when the page has been properly used. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Macdonald-ross, actually no. I never do anything that anyone considers inappropriate. Where is this written down? I sometimes patrol recent changes to talk pages and have been guilty of adding a template if there is a comment or discussion existing that should remain for history, because it has the rules for proper talk page use. I do not believe I have ever created a talk page that did not exist just to place a template. In fact I had finished my watchlist and had no more to do, so do not fret that I am going to flood recent changes or whatever. I only added three; the remaining four were restoring ones that had been placed by other editors or admins and had been reverted by further inappopriate edits. This seems harmless to me, but I shall cease immediately. I really wish to be seen as a proper and good editor. Thanks as always. Fylbecatuloustalk16:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it predates me! It's not a big deal. Looking at En wiki, I see minimal templates where there never is much discussion, and huge great templates on talk pages where there is a lot of traffic. Coming over to Simple, we see some pages with attribution, and other pages with the heading, which is put there after an act of vandalism has caused the content to be deleted. Anyway, that's where we are at present. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Macdonald-ross No problem. Thanks for letting me know. I do not wish to stumble over even the unwritten practises! At this point, since I have been hanging around here for three years, if I miss a step, it is because I am in the dark. ツ Fylbecatuloustalk22:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~Derp-Cheese~, welcome and thanks for coming by and admiring my felines. ツ I see from your enwiki page you have a cat. Mine was a rescued feral and we shared life together for thirteen years. Her name was Fearless. There are a number of cat lovers on English Wikipedia. Then there are the dogs... wishing you all the best and happy editing. Fylbecatuloustalk15:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This tool: https://tools.wmflabs.org/refill/ is a lifesaver. It is pretty much self-explanatory. I just change the default 'en' to 'simple' (scroll down) and uncheck 'Do not add access dates'. I have a friend on English WIkipedia who absolutely cannot do referencing so they just put the bare links in their articles and run refill afterwards, It is actually easier than filling in the template for citations. In spite of the current mayhem, I wish you all the best and happy to meet you. ツ Fylbecatuloustalk21:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Macdonald-ross, no I had not seen this. Truly, cats rule! I love it; this is now in my 'addicted to' videos. If you only knew how happy this makes me. The one cat that lashed out - that was typical aggression for my feral Fearless. Fylbecatuloustalk17:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Etamni, Thank you for the mention ツ Every now and then I will notice a qd candidate that I I would find interesting to work on. One I saw was Call and response (music), which was so aha! that I grabbed it from the delete tray, took off the pink tag and soon had a nice happy article. Usually when it is nominated for 'little or no meaning' I get a giggle out of leaving it in the QD category with the big 'qd' tag intact and meanwhile sneakily turn it into something tangible and comprehensive. I just love imagining the admin who takes a look and says "well, this is not going to be a quick deletion" and then I have an article. ツ Even more, I am an inclusionist and hate to see something that could become useful get tagged to go within two minutes. Fylbecatuloustalk04:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand completely. Lately, I've found myself just tagging even the ones with interesting titles if all they contain is garbage. Too many other junk edits to fix. Sometimes I just get on here and keep checking the new changes; fixing vandalism for hours and hours at a time. When I'm in this mode, new articles are evaluated simply: If it looks like an attempt to make the encyclopedia better, I'll leave it alone or improve it; but if it looks like total junk, I'll feed it to the dogs and move on to the next. (The dogs are named "Que" and "Dee", btw.) Personally, I consider myself more of a delusionist; that is, neither inclusionist nor deletionist, but it seems not too many people share this middle-of-the-road philosophy. Etamni | ✉ | ✓05:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Larry Holden
I am the sister & heir to HOLDEN AUTOMOTIVE which was older brothers production company. I just want accurate information on his Wikipedia site and I am trying to correct them on this site as well as IMDB. For some reason someone anonymously is changing these sites or just posting false information.
Larry was not from Belfast, Ireland. He was born in Massachusetts.
In 2009 he separated from Hanne Kristiansen and she returned to Norway. The two never saw one another again.— This unsigned comment was added by WaywardsLilSis1 (talk • changes) at 22:42, 18 June 2016 UTC.
Hello, WaywardsLilSis1. Thank you for explaining these concerns. I am going to add this conversation to the article talk page we have for Talk:Larry Holden ← (click through the link). It is our practise here to talk about the content of an article on its talk page. Other editors / administrators will be more likely to see it there. Also others may wish to comment since there are several problems here. Thanks and all the best. Fylbecatuloustalk23:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your response. I am striving for accuracy on my late brothers page out of respect. He had written the information about where he was from to protect his families privacy. And now that he is gone it should be accurate out of respect. He doesn't have to protect us that way anymore and for anyone who wants to research him in the future it should be right. Thank you.— This unsigned comment was added by WaywardsLilSis1 (talk • changes) at 00:17, 19 June 2016 UTC.
WaywardsLilSis1, kindly continue this discussion at Talk:Larry Holden instead. I have taken the liberty to copy the above paragraph to the article's talk page for you, but future messages regarding this issue should continue on the article's talk page instead, not here. ChenzwTalk03:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...I actually thought it was a rather informative point (and I didn't know about it either!), but if you still feel like leaving it reverted, that's also fine.
P.S. Such info could be useful in the Help namespace–that namespace has barely any contributions, and I am quite sure that some pages are outdated already. ChenzwTalk16:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Chenzw and StevenJ81, thank you both. Any time I detect conversations turning into 'not peaceful' I tend to shy away. See even here I won't use any term that might be construed as snarky or snippy or contentious. ツ I wish to be polite and obedient at all times. Please see this diff for an example: [2] (feel free to smile ツ ) So I surmised that I might possibly be disruptive in adding to something closed by an admin I greatly respect. On English Wikipedia is en:WP:Notifications. The section 'triggering events' is where the details for how pings work are. It is all more mysterious than the developers imagined. The most fascinatng is that one can ping by typing {{Yo}}. lol. Happy editing again. Fylbecatuloustalk22:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Chenzw, oh and yes, I see we do not have a simplified version of that page or the en:WP:Notifications/FAQ page here. So yes, I can add something where ever it best belongs. If Help namespace is good I can do so. Let me know. Thanks, Fylbecatuloustalk22:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seven Wonders
I think you need to relate your new page New7Wonders of the World with the lower section in Wonders of the World. The main point is that there have been various attempts to do a modern list. Naturally, no single version should be promoted in preference to any other unless there is convincing critical evidence to that effect. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mac, yes, I can do this, but I am experiencing a non sequitur moment here. ツ Are you asking that my article not exist because it represents a single version promoted above the others and thusly be merged into the article you have in mind? Or do you wish me to add a section heading, statement of explanation and list of 'new7wonders' to said article? I did notice the older article when I was composing mine, but shrugged it off for the moment because it is vague, unsourced and, especially in the modern sections, lacking the components of modern journalism: the Five Ws. I will do either and certainly wish to improve [[WotW]] if I add to it. Please reply. I promise to follow through, but if I am missing promptly, it is because I am all tied up in my modern world. As always, the best to you. Fylbecatuloustalk23:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You raise several issues. I was not saying we should not have New7Wonders as a separate page: it would be entirely within our guidelines. I do not personally care whether Wonders of the World (WotW) has sources or not, but again it would be good to have them. My main concerns are that the modern lists should not promote themselves as "better", when all of them seem to have defective methodology. None has a methodology as sound as that for UNESCO's World Heritage Sites. All seem to be public relations stunts, and open to manipulation by interested groups. Tourism is an obvious influence. On New7Wonders, only one of the list is later than the 17th century! So in effect, only the list is new. I made the point that the two pages should communicate. New7Wonders should mention that it is one of a number of modern attempts, and at least the UNESCO comments should be noted, and the manipulation of the Brazilian vote. I think our younger readers might be shocked at how public votes are swamped by POV propaganda and multiple voting. I know how outraged many were when the BBC ran a viewers' poll on "100 Greatest Britons" (it turned out that the second placing of Brunel was achieved by multiple voting by students at Brunel University). It can wait until you have time. We do what we can. Cheers, Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mac, I have this and understand in agreement. Thanks ツ The first step I took was correcting the Wikidata links for [[WotW]] between the enwiki version and ours. They were wrongly linked. Now that I have the English article at hand, there is more to work with here in expanding ours. I will add to mine to reflect more of the criticism and public manipulation. Along with adding my section, I think I can also reflect in WotW the accurate editorial criticism you bring up, without engaging in original research. I will begin as soon as my day settles later. When I am stressed my cognition turns to mush. Thanks again, Fylbecatuloustalk14:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Hampton
Thanks for adding the cats and default sort. I was holding off to see what the outcome of the QD might be. I did edit the article for POV and added source citations. In that same vein, I removed the category:Murdered African-American people. Technically and legally he was not murdered. I don't believe a shooting under color of authority, even a bad or questionable one, can be termed murder unless or until there is a grand jury indictment and subsequent conviction. Even the lengthy civil trials resulted in a settlement. The news media is free to use loaded language, but I don't think we are. Just thought a note of explanation might be in order. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rus793, thank you. I innocently added the category because I remember the discussion on adding people to it here: Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2015/Category:Murdered African-American people. To my knowledge, I have no idea whether everyone in our category falls into the situation and outcome you describe. Actually, I do not mind at all revisions to any edit I make and sometimes learn something new by checking back ツ We saved an article and I am an inclusionist, so all is well. Thanks muchly for coming to explain. Fylbecatuloustalk18:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for improving this article. Could you change the beginning so that the first sentence says what pyruvic acid is? Right now it says how to make it instead. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Auntof6, you are welcome. I have done so and simplified to the best of my understanding. (Which is not much. I took first year chemistry in a learning lab at my local community college as a requirement for graduation in something nowhere near organic chemistry.) I gracefully placed a 'complex' tag on the article. I started with what I understood, but now that is is more proper as an article, it really is a bit beyond me. ツ Thanks as always, Fylbecatuloustalk13:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
