This user may have left Wikipedia. BigNate37 has not edited Wikipedia since August 2012. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Whisperback|BigNate37|Topic section}} on your talk, unless I see some indication that you are already expecting discussion to continue here.
I prefer to see a discussion indented properly. If you don't like to pay attention to your comment placement and indentation, I might clean it up for you.
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Company Havildar Major Piru Singh.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Company Havildar Major Piru Singh.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
Hi Nathan! I'm sorry that I don't know how to reply to your here and if this is the wrong way, but I simply wanted to say thank you for your input/post/comments on my TalkPage. Especially thanks for the references. I've read the Etiquette page. I'd love to chat about this sort of thing: relationships/communication/culture/language/media. Alrthough I have no natural abilities in these areas that fact has made it a central subjet of inquiry for me since a bit I hit my teens (and I'm now feeling winter approaching in my joints!). Anyway thanks again. You say here to contact yo hby email but I can't see one. Mine is [omitted]. I'm not clear on much regarding the "old skule" standards on the net. Once advice uised to be never to publish email addresses but I see more and more authorative bodies doing just that so .. Anyway, thanks again
Just making a note that this hasn't slipped off my radar. I've been mulling it over, and I'm not 100% sure what my revised attitude towards the proposal will be given the discussion that's occurred since I commented the first time. BigNate37(T)16:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer the editnotice, but since editnotices require admin rights and are a big deal, a Talk page template seems more achievable and will encounter less resistence. We could always inquire about upgrading it later. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 17:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right back at you on the template Talk page. I think we're on to something. Would love to refine it together then RfC it. I'm a firm believe in the importance of Jimbo's Bright Line, so I would like to make following it more practical. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 20:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for teaming up with me on this. It looks great thanks to your help. Do you think the next step would be to RfC it? Since it involves thousands of articles, I would imagine it takes a bit of discussion even if it is just Talk pages. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 17:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. RfC might be a good option. I'm not terribly familiar with the Companies wikiproject, but taking it there may be a better choice. It could always be added to the centralized discussion template if others agree it's worthy of advertising for more input. I've been out of touch with the culture around here lately though, so I'm pretty reluctant to give a firm answer. Things seem a lot stuffier now than they were back in '07. Heh. BigNate37(T)17:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to favor an RfC, only because most of the discussions on the Wikiproject Companies Talk page don't garner a response, including my previous post about this template. I'm not sure how to do an RfC, so I'll look into it. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 13:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey as far as actual execution, do you think it's possible for us to get a bot to auto-post the template on all ~7,000 company articles that are already tagged for Wikiproject Companies? And do you think we would want to do the same for Wikiproject Business, even though most of their articles aren't on specific companies (but are still subject to COI editing). User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 13:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been a little more hands-off lately for a few reasons. When I tend to have majority ownership of something, it always runs smoothly right up until I take my hands off and then someone else swoops in and squishes it, so I'd rather not have this be a direct reflection of any one person's ideas. Further, I've been busy enough elsewhere and if this thing has a chance of making it through, it's got to have support from more than a couple people (i.e., if it's got staying power then it won't die if I leave it be for a while). BigNate37(T)19:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. Generally I see silence as a sign of approval, if no one can come up with criticisms. ;-) The silence at RFC means the village pump comments molded it into something modest most people can agree with. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 03:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Autoconfirmed
Hey Nate. Rather than post about it at the help desk, I thought it might be better to tell you so you can go strike or amend (I somehow feel like a dick when I make a post that corrects another help desk regular, no matter how diplomatically I do so)--it's an easy mistake to make, but you can create pages the moment you create an account, no autoconfirmation needed. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up, I've adjusted my response there. Thank you for the consideration, as well, though there'd be no hard feelings if you corrected me more visibly. It's important to prevent folks from being misinformed. BigNate37(T)02:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm definitely confused. Are you saying you figured, in turn, that I was around, so could go take care of the edit protected request (which I'm going to do right now)?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No no no, I was just saying "you're right, I am still around, this is what I'm doing right now." I didn't mean to hint that you should handle that request. BigNate37(T)03:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was probably my fault. I have a habit of typing as I would speak naturally, and it confuses folks on a regular basis. Come to think of it, when I speak as I do naturally I tend to confuse folks... at any rate, thank you again. BigNate37(T)04:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a fault Nate. We all do it. As we type (or write) our brain uses auditory stimuli rather than visual. And our normal speech choices are probably the friendliest. As Martha Stewart would say, "It's a good thing." ```Buster Seven Talk21:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the show of support. Don't worry too much about me though, my tendency for self-deprecation is usually just a cover for an immense ego ;) BigNate37(T)22:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great effort to explain things to a confused editor. I don't think IP's that move around understand how extremely difficult it is too follow a discussion involving different addresses for the same editor. Well done! ```Buster Seven Talk12:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Nate. A user has asked me a question about the changes made the other day to some of these templates. I advised that I was implementing edit protected requests and didn't know the answer but that the person who posted the request might be able to shed light (you). Please see here. By the way, in looking at those templates I thought the documentation was completely cryptic for anyone who would really need it – the non-technically minded, so I attempted to write and added "human-readable" instructions at the front end.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like there were more implications for that change than I realized. It's unfortunate that in four years nobody raised one objection, but I guess that's how it goes sometimes—once you make a change, that's when you'll learn just how many folks don't like it! Anyways I don't know if you've seen the latest discussion at Template talk:Ln#redirect=no, but I've been reflecting on those changes, debating with myself whether to seek more input or not, and what the best way to go forward is. Well given the news about WP:SCV, I'd say we should simply add a redirect param to lx (so we can add redirect=no to transclusions) and remove the redirect inhibiting as a default behaviour. For now though, it seems urgent enough to roll back the changes that were made, starting with re-inserting colons everywhere they were taken. I'm a bit busy here IRL for the moment but I can probably whip up step-by-step instructions within the next four hours. I'll check to see if you've gone ahead and affected those rollbacks before I set about on that though. I'll have to take a closer look at your docs changes later on. BigNate37(T)01:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I looked last night to see where things were at. When I saw that you had reverted the templates already I didn't stick around, because I had things here to take care of. Your documentation changes look good; now if anyone is unclear on what that template presents, they can just be pointed at Template:Ln. BigNate37(T)14:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Something has gone wrong since yesterday afternoon, in that a bunch of templates are now appearing in Category:Stubs for the first time. Is this something to do with you? Found your name as the editor who'd recently edited one of the templates listed, {{Pagelinks}}, though on 8th Aug so obviously not the direct cause of the change (unless there are updating delays). I'm mystified by it all! 06:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello!!! I would wish to ask you if you could give your piece of mind regarding this → [2]. You already commented the subject (on the help desk) so I haven't found it inappropriate to ask you so. Sorry if it is. The discussion has already gone through its crucial points, so you wouldn't have to engage yourself in solving it, just give your thought. With regards, 178.223.223.170 (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm Ebe123, an Dispute resolution noticeboard volunteer. I would suggest to be undoing your edit [3]. I think that all comments if placed should stay even if the section is not open for discussion. ~~Ebe123~~ → report00:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't realize the nature of your involvement. I'm not exactly up on the dispute. I'll re-instate my comment, and add the other remark I had planned to add as well. BigNate37(T)01:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, This is appearing in Category:Stubs at the moment. Is that just a temporary testing thing? I hope so, because I'd hate to see it there all the time, as there's a great satisfaction in emptying the category and it would be a bit of a pain for stub-sorters to have this entry stuck there all the time! I hope you can reassure me that it's only there until you've got a particular issue sorted out, or perhaps that you can comment out the stubs category except when you're specifically testing that aspect? PamD22:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, the other sandboxes should have been updated to keep up with my changes. I was just careless because it was a sandbox version. I'll revert those changes until I have time to make them properly. BigNate37(T)00:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as other Canadian films that are worthy of attention, my personal intuition is that these are good candidates: Bon Cop, Bad Cop, the first widely-known bilingual Canadian film; Amanita Pestilens, the actual first bilingual film; Strange Brew, though it is not a critically acclaimed or impressive film in the traditional sense, it's cultural significance is important; and The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz (film), which is significant right along with the original The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz (novel) for its insights into . I suspect that several others from Canadian cinema#Notable films are also particularly significant but I also see some on that list that are borderline.
As for the Quebecois films, French is not a strength of mine, though I may be able to track down some sources for those films you mentioned. I could certainly perform machine-assisted English translations of those articles, given my comfort in English and familiarity with French—is that acceptable? As well, do you have any concerns about their ability to pass general notability or the film notability criteria here? I don't think it will be an issue, but it doesn't hurt to ask your opinion. I get the impression that this is by far the choosiest Wikipedia. BigNate37(T)16:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!
Thank you for the wishes, my absence was due to no more than a camping holiday in Northumberland, based near Haltwhistle. It's nice to know I was missed though.
If that contributor copy/paste moves the text, of which he is the only contributor, there is no licensing problem—it's his text and he's free to re-release it. So no, it is not necessary in strict terms. However nobody else can do it for him, because then they're using someone else's work without correct attribution (unless they use tags, edit summaries and history preservation as prescribed by Wikipedia:Merging to do a proper merge). As a caveat let me say that a history merge is still useful here. It qualifies as an easy case and there are no downsides to doing the history merge (except the time spent). History merges are preferred except when they are problematic, as was the case at the previous help desk question. BigNate37(T)16:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that just the stupidest thing? If they're naked links in ref tags, the script tells you "no fixes needed". Meanwhile it provides all dated as "2012-08-22" when we prefer fully written out dates, adds accessdates to citation templates that shouldn't have them (e.g. cite book); the peer reviewer script cannot recognize things that are in quotations so it reformats every contraction ("didn't" to "did not" for example, when I'm pretty sure that would be a relatively easy coding issue) and then you have to go back and "unfix" all of them and many others. I've been thinking of writing up one day a catalogue of all the tweak these scripts could use. The google books citation tool hyphenates isbns now because of my whining about it:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're starting to pique my interest, what with discussing improvements to software tools. Course it's been a long time since I've so much as looked at Python code, so my participation would only slow things down. =P I must say I haven't actually looked into what that tool is or how it works until now, I always perform fixes by hand which takes a good deal of time (insofar as I perform many fixes). I really ought to get acclimated to the landscape around here, I feel like I'm stuck in 2007 as far as tools I'm familiar with. BigNate37(T)22:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do lots by hand too, but really there are some very useful tools and having them at hand will help ease you into 2012:-) Let me give you some scripts I use, just so you know some of what's out there.
First of all, for my own use sinc I use cite book a ton in my own articles, I find Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books very handy; pop in a ULR get formatted text. Course it has multiple problems you have to fix: remove the default accessdate parameter (if you provide a URL to a book is it a convenience links because the book is actually a paper item, so accessdates are irrelevant [and you will be asked to remove them at a FAC btw]; same it true of newspapers and journals where you are seeing a scanned version of what's actually on paper). Then fix the page output which always provides a hyphen ("80-"), then, if it's a single page, fix the output from "pages=" to "page=" so it formats as "p." rather than "pp."; then fill in the location info for full attribution (usually available from Worldcat if you can't get it from the book; in Google Books click on "find on a library" to go straight to Worldcat; this is also how you find OCLC and ISSN numbers).
The peer reviewer script is very useful; place in your personal JS file:
importScript('User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js');
You will only see the link for it (upper right of screen) in edit mode; after you click the link for it, scroll to the very bottom of your screen to find the peerreviewer box, click, "autoformat article" then preview it and save if you see fit. It does some great things automatically though keep in mind the contraction issue I noted above. On a side issue, on the matter of previewing, I find the standard diff view almost useless sometimes; I recommend adding to your JS file
// install User:Cacycle/wikEdDiff enhanced diff view using ajax
importScript('User:Cacycle/wikEdDiff.js');
I use ref check (it's what I used to reformat the article that started this discussion); add to your JS file:
importScript('User:SQL/refcheck.js')
Finally, there's a few options in preferences I recommend: go to your preferences → Gadgets → and tick the boxes for
Reference Tooltips: Roll over any inline citation to see reference information, instead of having to jump away from the article text.
and
Citation expander: Automatically expand and format citations (uses "Citation bot").
Well I went and found a random article to play around with: Tomasz Urbanowicz. I was actually rather pleased to find such a perfect article for testing. I spent some time manually checking each bit of information, and fixing dates. The tool seems to have particular troubles differentiating the title of an article from the HTML title of a page, and the website URL from the work title from the publisher. I saved the original Reflinks changes and the fixed version sequentially so I could diff them individually and against each other. I'm not sure how I feel about Reflinks, given the amount of work I had to put into fixing what the tool produced. I suppose the help with identifying references that need fleshing out and the template code does shorten the time cost. It's not what I had expected though. BigNate37(T)22:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really like the enhanced diffs. I am especially fond of it because it's added as an optional, extra diff, rather than a replacement. I'm pretty comfortable with the standard diff, but it's more appropriate for looking at lists of newline-separated entries, and it fails miserably at markup tweaks. BigNate37(T)22:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The owner of the website has answered me and has told me that this picture is under public domain released by Jefferson County Sheriff Department. What do I do?, do I upload it under public domain? can I trust it ? Thank you. Nienk (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You need to verify that the image is indeed released in the manner you have been told it is. If it was his own picture then you could ask him to contact our WP:OTRS volunteers directly to give permission, but in this case that will not work. My first instinct is to search for the release directly from the Sheriff Department. Via google I surmise that their website is http://www.jeffcosheriff.net. I searched for Eric Harris at jeffcosheriff.net but was unable to find anything. Perhaps you could request a URL from the Columbine-Online website owner, if you feel that you are not being too much of a pest in doing so. you may also wish to contact the Sheriff's Department to see what they have. I don't know how successful that would be though: where I live, law enforcement are hesitant to help with unimportant matters. You may wish to browse through http://www.jeffcosheriff.net/album.php or try alternate google searches of their site: your google-fu may just be stronger than mine. BigNate37(T)22:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has become too esoteric for me to feel confident in my opinion. Did you pay for a DVD, or was there a part of that website where you downloaded the image from? You should make it clear on the description page. Also, the template you used is for works by the U.S. Government. I don't understand how the U.S. uses counties, or what exactly a Sheriff is really. Are you certain it's part of the federal government and not a state or municipal government organisation? BigNate37(T)00:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The website owner told me that the fourth point and sixth point contain the footage in which Eric Harris is featured pointing to the camera. I'm trying to find a public domain tag other than United States federal government but I can't find the appropriate one. Could you help me? I think this would work Template:PD-link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nienk (talk • contribs) 00:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. So the image you uploaded didn't actually come from the Sheriff's Office? You know I'm looking at that page and I don't even see where it says that the material is public domain. "Released" is ambiguous, and may only mean they've released the material for viewing. I think it's time to ask a wider group of folks, since it seems to me that someone should know what the standard practice is down in the U.S. for intellectual property and law enforcement. You might want to check out Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. BigNate37(T)02:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made some tweaks to the template. I've been working on an instruction page for the {{request edit}} queue, so I linked to the instructions instead of trying to provide instructions in the template itself, even though the instructions page still needs some work.
I've also been trying to nudge reviewers to be bold. If this template was added and we saw a big spike in the request edit queues, our current habit of discussing the finer points of inconsequential edits won't scale well.
I saw your changes. I'm commenting on them right now on the talk page there; I think it's best to keep discussion of the template with the template talk page. I've already left my thoughts about moving forward there. BigNate37(T)16:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also notice you like to remove {{tl}} tags. Why is this? We should be using tl/tlp/tls/tlsp (as appropriate) when we want to show a template in tag form, rather than <nowiki> tags. It's inconsistent style, and it hides information from the reader. I don't think we should be actively trying to hide the inner workings of the system from folks; competence is required and we shouldn't assume editors are going to get confused by a template. BigNate37(T)16:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, I'm nominating a couple of redirects based on a completely different rationale than Demi Lovato. My personal view is it doesn't fall under the same standard, so doesn't fall under that wait until Demi Lovato is decided thing. Let me know what you think. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 08:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BigNate. Though I'm disappointed by a lack of willingness project-wide to be more cautious editing in contentious areas (trying to throw companies a bone here), I think DES and DGG bring up good points that are representative of community consensus. It is true that any article has an effect on the real-world and we do not want editors to feel timid about incremental updates. Additionally, I'm looking for "the path of least resistance" as a starting point to get something up that will encourage good behavior from COIs in just a few sentences.
I see you have an interest in linking to section headings.
It's a concern of mine too, and I think we can improve on the current practice and/or documentation at least.
I have in the past often linked to section headings and it worries me that this is creating a future maintenance overhead. And it's not very convenient to leave the appropriate comment, and feels messy even when I do. And I'm not quite sure what the {{R to anchor}} and {{R to section}} templates achieve. I am now using anchors (after not in the section title) instead of linking to section headings but it still feels messy.
What I'd like is a template to provide an anchor for a redirect, the anchor to be of the same name as the redirect, and to also generate an appropriate comment. Perhaps {{subst:anchor from|redirect name}} would be an appropriate syntax, with this substituted template generating both a non-substituted anchor template and a comment. But I lack the expertise to write this.
As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Gbawden (talk) 08:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ECustoms 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Cloudbound (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
