User talk:Debresser/Archive 1

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, Debresser, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Proud to be here.Debresser (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Your changes

Please comment your changes. It's very hard to follow all your changes on a page when not one of them are commented at all. entro-p (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I am a relatively new wikipedian. Only just now I understood what you want me to do. I'll take care of it from now on. Thanks.Debresser (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Help in Referencing

{{help me}}Is there a difference between
[1],
[2], or
[3]?

  1. ^ http://doviddebresser.angelfire.com My First Home Page
  2. ^ My First Home Page
  3. ^ "My First Home Page"
Yes.. see above, where I added {{reflist}} so you could see how they show up. The best thing to use when citing websites is the {{cite web}} template (and {{cite book}} for books, and so on), as it organises all the information in a nice and tidy manner. // roux   20:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That was fast. Thanks.Debresser (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Response needed

I'd like you to join me at the talk page in discussing the changes you made to the article. Cheers,VR talk 22:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm on my way! See you. Debresser (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, still on your way?VR talk 02:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I left some seven messages on the Discussion page some two hours ago. You, on the other hand, seem to continue making changes which are disputable in various ways. Debresser (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I asked you to leave me a message at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Reactions. I don't see a message there. Can you give me the link to it?VR talk 02:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I posted them in the various sections of the Discussion Page. Sections 16,17,20,21,25,26,33. Debresser (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
For your benefit I put a short reaction where you wanted it, but you should really check your Talk Page and the abovementioned sections of the Discussion Page too, because they contain arguments related to the same subjects. Debresser (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

re israel gaza conflict

you responded to my comment about assassination vs killing with regard to Nizar Rayan, a senior Hamas political leader,

i'm sorry, debresser, i think you may have misunderstood me. are you saying that the killing of rayan was not "unexpected" and therefore doesn't qualify as assassination ? thanks Untwirl (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I might have misunderstood you. If so, please excuse me. The point was the general difference between 'killing' as in "killed in action" and 'assassinating' as in "assassinated in his bed during the night". Debresser (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm afraid we have to be more precise. An English judge killed in his bed in his house in London by an Irish terrorist would be 'assassinated', while a Taliban leader killed in his bed in his house in Kabul in the course of an American invasion would be 'killed'. Debresser (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

oh, i do see your point about it occurring during the invasion. assassination does have a connotation as more of a peacetime thing, that's true. Untwirl (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This edit

Regarding this edit. Isn't it agreed that 5 Israelis have been killed? BBC says "Five Israelis have been killed since the start of Israel's military operation 10 days ago."[1]VR talk 21:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have recently seen 4, 5 and 6. But all sources seem to agree that only 1 soldier was killed. As I wrote on the discussion page, we should await more detailed information before making changes. Debresser (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian Casualty Count Changes

Debresser,

Since you are editing the casualty counts in the infobox please see my criticisms at [on Palestinian Casualty Accounting]. They are well supported and should be reflected in the infobox or at least you should provide a reason for ignoring my criticism.

Thank you,

Thrylos000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.36.170 (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agreed with them a few hours ago and stopped touching the article. Debresser (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop inflicting censorship to wikipedians by removing their comments

Even if you had a point, it is destroyed by you not removing other comments with the same quality. Leladax (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

1. I do regret taking the step I took. Although your language was definitely below standard. 2. What you just said would be true if I indeed had seen any more similar statements. Which I did not. A fact that in and of itself may help you determin how far below standard your language was. Debresser (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please review the relevant section to see that I have added a polite request for you to reconsider your language. Debresser (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I know. Sometimes I forget. Usually I remember right away and make an extra edit to add them. :) Debresser (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

hollah back

hey thank you!--Cerejota (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

for the refix. Brunte (talk) 10:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. Which article did you have in mind? Debresser (talk) 10:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Found it. And in doing so I learned to use the 'User contributions' button. :) It indeed was my pleasure. Debresser (talk) 10:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Editing talk pages

I noticed you made minor corrections to something that another editor had written on a talk page. Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments. The advice is less stringent with it comes to editing one's own contributions on a talk page. I'll do it if it's immediately afterwords. I pushed the envelope here where I did the edits nine minutes apart, reworded it quite a bit, though hopefully did not change the meaning. I almost did that one as a talking to myself thing by adding a second paragraph but thought the odds were low that someone would have seen and started to use the original text. I should have tagged it with revised or something like that to alert people that I had revised my own post. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It feels unethical too. Even though it was just tiny things. Thanks for pointing my attention to the pertaining policies. Debresser (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Offensive comment

I'm really offended by your comment ("breaking promises...Arabs of Gaza too"). Firstly, I made a compromise with you, never made a promise. All compromises are understood to be temporary, until the situation at the article changes, as consensus can always change. And it has changed dramatically, if you look at the section now, everything, including your website stuff is gone.

Finally, in my edit, I reduced the portion about there being anti-Israeli protests in Damascus as well.VR talk 17:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. A compromise is not a promise. I'll warn Olmert.
And there was no consensus as to shortening this piece of information specifically. That was your choice. Now it's all removed, but that's not my issue with you. Debresser (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Vlastos & Gregory Vlastos

There's a stub about philosopher Gregory Vlastos. I stumbled upon it when I decided to help out a new Wikipedian who had written an article about the ancient Greek Vlastos family. So I improved that stub a little by adding a (partial) booklist and Wikipedia layout. Debresser (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Military SF

Please see here: [2]

Cheers, --Gego (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw that. It's just that I would prefer for somebody else to do it. Debresser (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

haha, same here. cheers, --Gego (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have created a category called "Military science fiction writers". This is a continuation of my work on the article about David Weber. I'll start adding names from the List of examples, if the genre "military science fiction" is mentioned in their respective articles. Making the list will be the next step. Have a look in another few hours. Debresser (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I am doing the same thing - the list has been redirected to the Military SF article and I started a list with references (although I wouldn't consider some of the books MSF, but whatever...) at eLib, so as to step on nobody's toes. I will copy the finished and agreed upon list afterwards as the basis for the new article... complicated, life at wikipedia. You could add them at elib first, if you want... Military SF Bibliography Cheers, --Gego (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm so far working on the category. Debresser (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, when I have a first version, I will start categorizing the authors... --Gego (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Have a look here, that I have now 12 writers in this category. I repeat that I do not think an author could be included in this category (and the list) if the words "military science fiction" aren't mentioned in his Wikipedia article, or at least strongly indicated (as in the case of a few of those I included). Debresser (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool - great work! Will add the two who are missing in my list. Cheers, --Gego (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, finished my list of 73 books at eLib.at with references. I used:
  • Clute, J. and P. Nicholls (1995). The Encyclopedia of science fiction. New York, St. Martin's Griffin.
  • D'Ammassa, D. (2004). Encyclopedia of science fiction. N.Y., Facts On File.
  • James, E. and F. Mendlesohn (2003). The Cambridge companion to science fiction. Cambridge ; New York, Cambridge University Press.
I will put up the list in the next days, as there are now references which have to be wikified and I think that some of the choises will sure be controversal and perhaps deleted. When they are posted, people can put up other references for proving that they are not considered MSF... Cheers, --Gego (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A great job. You'll surely tell us on the talk page of Military science fiction when you put it up. I'm watching that page. Debresser (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's up now, see List of military science fiction authors. Debresser (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Masada

I copied to content of Masada (Honorverse). As an admin I can view and restore content of deleted articles. I try to merge deleted Honorverse articles into larger, safer ones. Sometimes I miss them. A good way to look for them is to look at the history of Template:Honorverse and see what was removed and deleted. Let me know if you have any requests. To initiate a merge, use Template:Merge or its variants, and if nobody objects, after let's say a week, carry out the merge.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Notes:

You might want to leave a message at WP:WikiProject Science Fiction , WP:WikiProject Novels , WP: MILHIST... as it looks like your going into mil-sf you might be able to get a task-force together under the auspices of WPSF and WPMIL, so that you'll have a discussion page for like minded editors separate from user-talk pages. ( or two separate task forces, a mil-sf under WPSF and a mil-fic under WPMIL ) 76.66.196.229 (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

userboxes

Hi =) Let me find out how to create the userboxes and then I'll get back to you, okay? --JewBask (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate it. Debresser (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Be my guest! --JewBask (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Took me ten minutes. I liked that. Please have a look at User:Jewbask/userboxes. Debresser (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please help me with what I think are two tough questions

{{helpme}} One question is about a category loop. Please see here.

To prevent that happening, you need to change the userbox template to only include a category if it is in the user namespace. See {{User degree/MEd}} for an example.

{{helpme}} The other is about adding categories with templates. Please see here.

See above; you want to do that, not just <includeonly>[[Category:Foo|{{{PAGENAME}}}]]</includeonly>. //roux   15:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Please remove only the {{helpme}} you solved. Debresser (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. How peculiar that both questions have one and the same answer. Debresser (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What I did as a result of what I learned:

I had a hard time with this one, but a little experimenting gave me the answers I needed. I changed the templates {{Overlinked}}, {{Category unsourced}} and {{Category relevant?}} not to add their respective categories when used on pages within the Wikipedia namespace. And the reason is so that they won't show up on the pages that need attention in the categories Category:Articles with too many wikilinks and Category:Articles with unsourced categories. Debresser (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: 5th Honorverse anthology

Exactly because I am experienced, I know when to bend the rules :) A post at Baen's Bar, citing Weber himself, seems relatively reliable for that purpose, also if you want, move it from the article to talk. We will just re-add it in a few weeks were more official announcement will be made, I don't care that much :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Great news! It is the only upcoming releases statement that isn't sourced. That's why it stands out so much. As soon as it's official we'll have to update the Honorverse template accordingly. Keep me posted, please! Debresser (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Reversion

Apologies for reverting your edits over at Intensive and extensive properties, but I think you deleted more than you intended there.--144.53.226.17 (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback}} Thank you!!! Cerejota (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Dating template

Sorry, simple error. Years still young. Thanks for fixing! RoyalMate1 00:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Category talk:Wikipedia pages with broken references

I redirected that talk page to Help talk:Cite errors, moved your question and answered it there. Not a lot of people will watch the category talk pages, so a bunch of related talk pages have been centralized. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 12:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


Dr. Adrienne Warshawski in Honorverse article

I added the information to the Honorverse article in an effort to salvage it as her article that was going to be deleted. I see you have now championed the cause, so my work here is done.Esasus (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

International reaction to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict

Hi Debresser, I just wanted to let you know that the article Antisemitic incidents occuring during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict has been undeleted. I commented on what I think the ramifications for the corresponding section in the "International reactions" article should be, at that article's talk page. Since you were working on that section, your opinions would be most relevant. Happy editing! Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for contributing.

Was it a link for Bogotá? Had a quick look through the refs and I think it's the one you meant. I just checked their website and the Bogotá address has been changed slightly.

http://www.derechoshumanos.gov.co/observatorio_de_DDHH/departamentos/2007/bogota.pdf Power Society (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah I got you. That ones' been dead for a while. The thing is I typed in all the stats correctly and I even printed a number of pages from that link so I know they're correct. Not sure if it's normal procedure to allow info from dead links (probably not - unless we can get the stats elsewhere?) but I just left it while wondering what to do next.

But yeah, it's dead as a Dodo. Power Society (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly the same one, great work!

I'm not familiar with this archiving thing I'll have to check it out more. Thanks very much. Power Society (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I updated it. I wasn't familiar with it too, till today. :) Debresser (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of some modern IFVs

Hi. I may have edited the comparison table in one or two of the articles, but I did not create them and I don't recall adding the citation you are referring to. Regards. —Michael Z. 2009-02-15 06:06 z

I'm sorry. I just had a look who made the last five or so edits, and decided that it must have been you. I went into it more seriously this time, and found who did it and where he copies from. Be well. Debresser (talk) 06:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Selwood, Somerset

Hi, Thanks for spotting my error with the missing URL for the Manor House in Selwood, Somerset - now fixed.— Rod talk 12:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

February, 2009

[3] has an uncivil edit summary. Some editors/administrators may have a different understanding of WP:EL and WP:RS than others, but that does not make them "snobs." The usage of blogs is situation-dependent, and is a matter for editorial consensus, and blacklisting can prevent that process, usually, from even starting, but this is controversial so far. Please do not personalize the issues, it will make it more difficult to resolve. I have been examining the situation with the blacklist process, and you may wish to watch User:Abd/Blacklist and the attached talk page, where I'm developing, with the assistance of any editor who cares to participate, a report on the topic, but please do not attack or insult the volunteers who work intensely to protect the project from linkspam and content that violates policies, even if sometimes they go beyond your opinion (or mine) of the meaning of the policies. --Abd (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't think I was being too serious in calling anybody a "snob". That's why I said it only in the edit summary. To let show that they don't have to be holier than the pope. A blog is not a forbidden source. I quote "Self-published sources may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution". In the case of that link listed as spam, it's a very informative site and a shame to wave it away by saying "blog, blog". No offense intended. Debresser (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Suit yourself. Just be prepared to wear it. Yes, there are usages for blogs, I'm not going to enumerate them. Depends on the usage and also on the "blog." Not all blogs are equally allowed or disallowed. But that's not the point of my warning. The point is that you were gratuitously uncivil. Being opposed to the usage of blogs isn't being "holier than the pope." And being uncivil to these volunteers, whether or not they have some disliked personal characteristics, isn't going to help fix the problem of rigid blacklisting and a small group of admins handling both blacklisting and whitelisting. It's just going to cause the blacklister volunteers to circle the wagons. They are doing that to some extent anyway, even without incivility.
A conflagration might be caused by the accumulation of fuel, but we are still concerned with who tossed the match. Don't toss matches, you might get burned, not to mention the collateral damage. --Abd (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. Still, as I said before, don't take it too seriously. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't imagine a serious face here. WP:DGAF. There is a method to my madness. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Mount Rainier

I am curious as to why you performed this [4] edit. You can respond here or on my talk page. Thanks. --DRoll (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Astroids

{{adminhelp}} Today I had a look at Category:Wikipedia pages with broken references. The number of pages jumped overnight from 3000 to 8000. Because of some astroids. I would personally recommend all 5000 of them (if that is indeed the same 5000) for speedy deletion. If they should be kept, some bot should add the {{reflist}} template. The number of articles in this category had just gone down from 5000 to 3000 and soon I wanted to start taking care of them, but this is bot-work. I'd be happy to help, but don't know how. Debresser (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you should post this to WP:BOTREQ. It's frequented by a number of programmers who love to tackle things like this. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Somebody did, apparently, because it's down to 2200. Debresser (talk) 12:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Expert

Thanks: but no, it's a copy of the template page for development. The commented out begin and end strings are to enable recovery when someone "substs" these type of templates. Rich Farmbrough, 20:00 18 February 2009 (UTC).

I understand now. I've met a few instances of this and fixed them. That's what I though to be doing now too, not knowing that you are a template developer. Debresser (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're good at it, perhaps have a look at Category_talk:Infobox_templates#3_infoboxes_causing_template_loop. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

These are solved now. Debresser (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Darwin's Black Box/Comments

Hi,

I think I'll just request deletion. There was not reason to create the page in the first place. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Tell me where and I'll endorse the request. Debresser (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I've speedied the pages but they've yet to be deleted. Depending on the response there may be no need. It's an odd situation, WP:BLANK doesn't really apply, or most of the other CSD categories (they're primarily aimed at mainspace pages). I'm hoping the admin sees the page is moribund and just kills it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Now deleted. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

A NobodyMy talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

That was very nice of you. May I ask where I have caught your attention? Debresser (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That is to say, together with the other 24 editors thus rewarded. :) Debresser (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Broken refs in templates/infoboxes/etc.

You asked me to take a look at broken refs in templates/infoboxes/etc. Ouch, that was a tough one. And yes, I found a better solution. I have responded over at Help talk:Cite errors#Broken refs in templates/infoboxes/etc..

--David Göthberg (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Amazon Kindle

Saw your edit summary at Amazon Kindle, re [5]. In this case, I think the source is acceptable. It is a primary source (from Amazon), but does not offer any critical analysis or interpretation, but simply claims basic core elements of the device (WP:PSTS). Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Debresser (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

flag a page as containing factual errors?

How do I (or any relevant person) flag a page as containing factual errors? LP-mn (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If you take a look at "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carter_system", you'll see that I have no issue with Carter System per se, I'm ignorant of it. I do feel that the reference to the California 3-way needs to be disputed, critisized, whatever. What exact terminology or flag do you suggest adding to the main "Carter System" web page? LP-mn (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

See your talk page. Debresser (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Harout72

{{adminhelp}}

I accidentely ran into an edit war on Luis Miguel between Harout72 and an anonymous user.

At the moment I made my first edit to that article I was aware that some edit war was going on, but didn't pay attention to include the source preferred by Harout72. After he reverted my edit, I wrote him on his talk page that he shouldn't be deleting sourced material. We have continued the discussion a little. Today I proposed a compromise on the talk page of the article. Not between me and him, because I do not see myself as an involved party and have not changed the article after that first time, but between Harout72 and the anonymous user. Harout72's reaction to my proposal warrants an official warning, I feel.

  1. He is not responsive to my appeals for compromise. In stead he continues the edit war.
  2. He is implicating me personally of having ulterior motives.
  3. He is completely convinced that he is 100% right in all his arguments, and does not give any merit whatsoever to counter-arguments.
  4. He is using belittling language to me (in my perception at least), by stressing his experience on Wikipedia as opposed to mine.

In short: he is being confrontational and uncivil. Debresser (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Women and/or Gender in SF

Hey, after seeing your sig on a few talk pages , i was wondering if you were interested in doing a collaboration on the women or gender in science fiction articles? I have the encyc. of Sf and of fantasy, and google books have a lot of viewable stuff, so i think getting to GA is simply a case of putting the info together. I started on Gender with organisation and some sources, but don't mind switching to any article in the Sex (inc. Gender) in SF series i made up.

I've done 5 featured lists, a featred topic and a GA in the series so far, but it's slow going with only me working on them, and my terrible typing :). But with so few editors, there is also very little warrig or stress!YobMod 20:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You have a very nice name (if you know Russian). Actually I am not looking for any big projects at the moment. Actually, I doubt if I could be of great help. But if you'd like to me to have a look at some things once in a while, I'd be glad to be of assistance. I could do some wikifying e.g. Debresser (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Month on fact tags

Re this edit summary: I have my preferences set to show my local time, and when I added that fact tag, it was 5:29 am on 1 March where I am. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

February 28th or March 1st

I have already realized that today is the last day of the month and that people in other time zones are already in March. I'm sorry for being a little slow sometimes. By the way, there are those who wrote March already a few days ago. Debresser (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Your input regarding "flags" on pages

Debresser-

Please take a look at Circuit Total Limitation. I don't expect you to necessarily be an expert on the topic, but I would like your input regarding the "banner" (or 'flags' for lack of a better word) that are at the top. Once upon a time, one could _ARGUE_ that they may all have been relevant. (I would take issue with the neutrality and others.) But, since the time the flags were inserted NUMEROUS additions, citations, sources, quotes, and images have been added to back up the initial entry.
I agree that the "cleanup" banner is still relevant.

However, I believe that all the others should be deleted.
What I don't know is if it is appropriate for me to delete the flags myself.

Can you give me some guidance here on both
- the issue of deleting the banners as well as
- some input on how to clean up the article's appearance?


Thank you.
LP-mn (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, I think you've misunderstood. The article _IS_ now referenced. The banners now SHOULD be removed. There's no need for the 'disputed' or other banners. As the primary author, can _I_ be the one to take them down, even though I did not put them up in the first place? (While leaving the 'cleanup' one in place of course.) LP-mn (talk) 05:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

See your talk page. Debresser (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, did all you recommended. LP-mn (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm humbeled. Good luck! Debresser (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Location message

Hello there. I am not too sure to what you are referring in your note on my talk page. I have not made a location article for awhile, I have been working on other items lately. You sent a message about two locations, if you could clarify, it would be appreciated. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 16:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I wrote you on your talk page, including the diffs of the edits causing the problems. Debresser (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahh now AI understand. I knew I hadn't done it lately. Will keep eyes open Thank you for your note.SriMesh | talk 00:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hi. Don't know if you realised, but recently you were actually editing one of my (now deleted) sandbox pages, and not an article. MickMacNee (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That must have been under an other name than "MickMacNee". Could you please remind me? Was there a template loop on the page, perhaps? Debresser (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

A version of 60163 Tornado. MickMacNee (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I work regularly on broken citations, broken references and template loops (which I fixed completely). If it was a really minor thing which I was sure you'd be happy to see fixed, I might have done that on your userpage. That happens rarely, but it happens. I hope you're not upset with me. Debresser (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, it did annoy me, because you moved text that was in a certain place for a certain reason, and would not have been in the article space release. I would caution against editing any pages which are clearly marked as user sandboxes. The issue is not the change, but the fact that it caused me confusion, because as a sandbox, I don't have it watchlisted, and only discovered your changes after looking at the history for an unrelated reasons, having previousy attributed the arising confusion to me being mad/crazy, and even worse, to me thinking I had somehow made an error and saved an earlier version. MickMacNee (talk)
I see it now. And I remember it. Have a look at Category:Articles with broken citations and you'll see why it stands out. But you are right, that was a bit more than ethically allowed. Please accept my apologies. You said you deleted it? Debresser (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
No worries, I'll think about how I can stop it appearing in there, now I know that cat exists. Essentially, if/when the article ever gets to release stage, all those 'broken' refs won't be in it, they are merely in there as copy/paste templates. MickMacNee (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The solution I would use (and was that what I used in those edits of mine?) would be to place the unused references in remarks <!-- --> till such time as they would be needed. Debresser (talk) 12:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Cellebrum Technologies Limited

You removed the fact tags I'd put on; I understand your reasoning, but the problem is this;

The references given only supported 1 of the branches / offices overseas. I can't see another way of representing that.

Note that the article has a history of spam, COI and anonymous, commentless edits attempting to ramp it up.

It's barely notable, but it probably just passes the criteria.

I've been knocking back the unreferenced, badly sourced and advert-like parts for a while now, and I think I'll give up on it. I'm spending too much time checking the refs, tagging, validating etc. I don't see how this is ever going to be an article that actually contributes to the project.

Regards,

--  Chzz  ►  20:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the spam. I have the article watched now. I'm glad you understand my reasoning. I think the article looks a lot better this way, while still expressing that the refs need some (or a lot of) work. Isn't there some better reference available? Debresser (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I found the sources. The list of international clients is derived from a page on the companies site. The page provides logos only, but it's clear that this is the same list. The offices are mentioned both in the BusinessWeek article as on their website. I'll add the references. Debresser (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I ended up pretty much reworking the page. :) Have a look. Debresser (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I've tagged the article as disputed. The ref to their own website to support the facts is WP:SELFREF and thus not WP:RS, especially considering that there is a history of falsifying info on the page - check the history, edits have made claims several times which have been proved false - for example, they said they had bought a co in Malaysia, supported by a ref to themselves. A bit of googling showed that they had merely entered into some kind of partnership arrangement with the co (well, possibly, because that source isn't totally reliable) - and they had certainly NOT taken over the co as claimed. Again, check the hist if you like; I've wasted many hours on this garbage. If I now removed ref 1 from the list of regional offices, it will then look like ref2 (at the end of the sentence) supports all of the info in the sentence, which it clearly doesn't.

Ref2 is also to their own website, ref 3 is to a streetmap (does that really prove the co has a branch there?) and ref4 is a dead link.

So, it's really a totally unsourced article, and should be speedy deleted...but based on my experience, if I edit it to reflect that, I'm sure an anon IP will pop along within a short time, add another spurious reference without an edit comment, and so on and so on.

Which is why I give up.

I don't mean this in an accusatory way, I have good faith and all that, but...your edits are supporting their advertizing and spamming.

I truly hate these spam articles, and have gone to enormous lengths to try and prevent the editors from getting away with using WP in this manner, but it is extremely hard work to monitor. For example, the other day I spent several hours checking through the alleged validity in this article, checking their refs, making sure I wasn't making any assumptions or removing any valid material, and then - well, you know what's happened.

Sorry to rant, I'm really not having a go at you, I just really really REALLY HATE SPAMMERS AAARGh.

I'll have a lie down now.

--  Chzz  ►  06:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this is not what a selfref is about. Have a look there and you'll see that a selfref is a ref in an article to itself (or Wikipedia in general). You meant it is a self-published source. The policy on self-published sources is that they may be used with caution as sources on themselves.
Apart from that I personally think that a self-published source, even when doubtfull, is better than no source. If the information is there, then so should be its source.
So basically I feel that your removing the ref to their site was unjustified. Debresser (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, somebody already

  1. removed the "disputed" template (I think that is for the better, because if you dispute then you should have put your reasons on the talk page for discussion)
  2. deleted the information you added about a case (but he did post on the talk page about that, so that wasn't vandalism)

Debresser (talk) 12:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes, I meant WP:SPS, not WP:SELFREF.
  • I disagree with the users removal of the perfectly valid, sourced info about the cases. I think it relevent to the article. Should I put it back, at the risk of an edit-war?
  • Regarding the reference - if you follow the logic you gave, any company can write anything they like about themselves, as long as they put the same info on their website. Which they frequently do.

Did you look back at their prior claim, that I spent time researching to prove was invalid, regarding the Malaysian part of their operations?

--  Chzz  ►  14:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

  1. The right thing to do would be to discuss it on the talk page and act upon consensus. After all, nothing is lost by waiting a few days.
  2. There is something to be said for your argument, because it is precisely what I hold. That anything sourced could be posted unless and until that source would be proven unreliable. Which, if I understand you correctly, is precisely what you claim it to be in this case. If you'd bring your proves on the talk page, then we could stop using their information officially, but as long as that hasn't been done, it is sourced and reliable.
  3. No, I didn't go into it. I am involved in a few projects of my own and they keep me busy fine enough, thank you. :) Debresser (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I am rubbing it in on Talk:Cellebrum_Technologies_Limited#Opinion and the one above that. :) Debresser (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your 'weak keep' vote; please see my response in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cellebrum Technologies Limited (2nd nomination)

Regards,

--  Chzz  ►  14:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the discussion is closed as "no consensus'. Some more sources came up in the discussion. I hope the article will be improved now. But I have my doubts as to wether User:Raj Kumar Machhan will stop his attemps at influencing the article. Debresser (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Rotational edit warring

Hello. I noticed you've been involved recently with User:Rotational's MOS edits. I've opened another report on his edit warring after the past three days of edit warring. You can find the discussion if you're interested and add to it as you see fit: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Rotational reported by Rkitko (2) (Result: ). Thanks, Rkitko (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Debresser (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

re: which template

Which template did you substitue on the talk page of this user? Debresser (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It was Template:uw-huggle1. --Rrburke(talk) 18:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I only new those on wp:User warnings. This is a lot better. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That template is used by Wikipedia:Huggle , a piece of software for editing/fixing Wikipedia. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference needed

I saw you added a reference http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/1998/04/25/bosta25.xml to the article about Antony Beevor. Could you add the title of this article, please, since without title the Template:Cite web produces a "broken citation" error. Debresser (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I couldn’t find a title, as the link is dead. Suggestions?

--
Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the link is dead, and even on www.archive.org it doesn't work. Have a look in a few minutes to see what I did. Debresser (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

We could, of course, also delete it. However the Telegraph is archiving its publicated material (so far down to 2000), so it is reasonable to leave this link and to search for it on their webarchive in another year or so. Debresser (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Edit summary

Thanks! Who says fixing those articles can't be fun? =D

--- Arancaytar - avá artanhé (reply) 16:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your kind words on the parshah pages. And thanks for updating the links to Talmud Rabbis. I appreciate it. -- Dauster (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Armenian diaspora

Hi דָּוִד is that right?,
thank you very much for supporting me and my work on the armenian diaspora article. As I did not agree with all of your changes, I used a subsection of the article's talk page to explain why and now invite you to discuss there if you do not agree with my opinion.
Have a nice day,
Greets from Munich, 88.64.19.235 (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC) edited 88.64.19.235 (talk) 08:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was right. I thank you very much for crediting me by name for my changes on the talk page. I was just trying to fix broken citations when I saw that I might do a little more in this case. My pleasure. I had no problem with the things you don't agree with me about. Go ahead and make this into a good article. By the way, you might want to consider splitting the article. Debresser (talk) 10:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick answer and your overwhelming politeness ;). Great to see, that we have the same POV. I wanted to split the article moving the table in an own one anyway. I really hope I'll be able to improve it - you might sometime perhaps concider having a glance at it (then perhaps allready being an own article - I want to do that, when everything else is finished. What do you think?) again ans then maybe also feel like fixing the mistakes you spot ;)
Greets from Munich, 85.181.51.205 (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC) edited, 85.181.51.205 (talk) 12:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Will be my pleasure. I see that you use different IP's. Have a look here, please, to see what I wrote you on the previous IP. You'll agree with me that having 1 user name will be more convenient for all of us. Debresser (talk) 12:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(I tried to catch you by placing a redirect on this last talk page which I will remove later on) Debresser (talk) 12:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

As you see I (being me ;) ) allready have one. I just don't login that often mainly because I'm not bold enough and because I want to use seperate Sockpuppets for every topic I'm writing on (especially local ones), making it harder to identify me. But it's sort of funny you propose me to register as I allready typed (and then deleted - but nearly posted) that I was going to continue my work with my user as I really like, what I reached so far. But now, I have to go back to work ;). Thank you very much for your efforts.
BTW: How good is your basic German? Have you only been to Germany or also to Bavaria? ;) Perhaps even to Munich?.
Greets from Munich, Bavarjan (talk) 12:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC) edited Bavarjan (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
You may write me in German, no problem. Yes, I've spend one summer in Bayern (not far from Fulda, if I remember correctly, that was about 20 years ago) and have visited Munchen once. Debresser (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ta'am 'elyon and Ten Commandments

Your post on my talk page is noted.

The section in question is about how the Ten Commandments are used in the Jewish liturgy, which is a legitimate aspect of an article on the Ten Commandments. As part of that information, it points out that the Ten Commandments have a special set of cantillation signs, and a special chant to go with them, and that the term "ta'am elyon" can be used to mean either. What on earth is problematic about saying that? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If you check the articles on Neviim and Ketuvim, the cantillation of those books is discussed. So why should the cantillation of the Ten Commandments not be?
If it's just the way it's expressed that you find obscure, by all means have a go at clarifying it. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for Guidance

I have added the links that came up during the discussion to the Cellebrum Technologies page. Though I am clear with myself about my intentions, I would prefer to avoid making any edits. If you have the time, I would be highly thankful if you could add the information based on these links. Alternately, I can compile the information and get it reviewed from you (I won't be really comfortable doing it though). I look forward to your views on this.

Raj Kumar Machhan (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not, sorry. Debresser (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:User JTS

No problem. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

ICQ template

Today I found a messed up ICQ template. It had multiple problems in its code, and clearly didn't do what its writer had intended it to. I think I fixed all of the problems, and that it now does precisely what it was supposed to do. I have changed font sizes and the size of the white field a little, in accordance with my taste. Unfortunately, I am not a programmer, so it took me a lot of edits to reach a satisfying result, using the method of trial and error. Debresser (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

template loop

Thanks for your assistance. I did not know how to resolve the problem, and I will study your correction for a better understanding of this issue. Cheers! Mgreason (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. Be in touch, if you need anything. Debresser (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Years of Refusal

Hi, yes it is because the information contained in the link could (and maybe should) be added to the reception part of the article. WP:ELNO#1 applies because if the information was to be added to the article, it wouldn't stop it from becoming FA-class. I hope that helps, --JD554 (talk) 06:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Your edit to European Union wine regulations

Hello, please do not remove relevant information and mark it as a "minor edit", as you did with this edit. I take your point that the reference could not be used in this place of the article (which is a rather recent change to Metawiki) and it is no longer. However, you may wish to consult Help:Minor edit. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right. I actually said so myself in the edit summary: "if this information was important it should have been in the main body of the article, but no references are allowed below the refsection". I'll try to be more carefull in the future. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Allhomes

Hi

you have been removing links to allhomes.com.au from Canberra suburb articles. This was not originally an advertisement, but was often the original reference source for the information in the suburb articles! Applying particularly to hose prices. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia needs information of house prices. Debresser (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Spaghetti with meatballs

It isn't a nonsense page, it just had nonsense added to it, so I've reverted it. —Snigbrook 21:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Lucky you were around. Debresser (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would have been a problem, administrators are unlikely to delete pages without checking the history. —Snigbrook 21:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hey, thank you for fixing the ref tagging thing on the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arcata_Wastewater_Treatment_Plant_and_Wildlife_Sanctuary&diff=278197501&oldid=278196900 article. I could not, in my haste, figure out how to do it. I think that I, by mistake, reverted an edit that you did, as you were trying to be helpful, in between my edits. I appreciate you correcting that tag. Peace, rkmlai (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. Debresser (talk) 12:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Paroxetine

It is important that pregnant mothers suffering from depression receive treatment and are not scared to help themselves. There is new evidence that paroxetine does not harm nursing or pregnant mothers and their offspring. In fact, evidence suggests that left untreated, depression in pregnant mothers could be more dangerous than the unknown affects of the drug. I appreciate your interest in the subject. Mwalla (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)mwalla

Maltese people

Hi, I see you recently edited the article. I removed some irrelevent information in the "Historical accounts" part of the section about the genetic affinity of the population - that the Maltese joined Nato- and I was then reverted by this user, where he called me a vandal. If you could weigh in on the article with your thoughts, that would be much appreciated. 78.145.16.3 (talk) 10:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Maltese people has been semi-protected as a result of IPs vandalism. we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
No lying please - the article was protected due to both of us. Also, from what other editors seem to think on the talk page, it was not I who was doing the vandalism. Like I said Pietru, I'll be watching your edits. 89.243.67.167 (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
IP, you have been banned from the Wikipedia community; your suggestions have actually been removed because they failed to even understand the premise of the section. And the idea of somebody like you stalking me is, quite frankly, disgusting. we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
"the idea of somebody like you stalking me is, quite frankly, disgusting" - haha! 89.243.67.167 (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
FYI, the anon has been uncovered to be User:Iamandrewrice. we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 13:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
No, one person suspects me to be connected with that account - there hasn't been any checkuser proof. 89.243.67.167 (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's some additional information regarding the IP's connection to User:Iamandrewrice and it's trolling MO: it is from the same range as a third of known accounts used by this editor, and traces back to the exact same place as all of them. The editor's bizarre behaviour is identical, as are the articles edited. User:Knepflerle offered this salient suggestion on a possible course of action: (Only a handful of fairly narrow bands of IPs are being used) - someone ought to look into which of them can be rangeblocked without collateral damage. Pietru (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I that all, now? Debresser (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh. You're actually reading this? Who knew. Pietru (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I try to be polite, so I read whatever people find it necessary to put on my talk page. But this case might interest me only if I were an admin. I made the comment I made on Maltese people based on the assumption that he was a legitimate albeit anonymous user. As soon as that assumption had been put to question, my involvement with the case ended, as far as I am concerned. Debresser (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No probs, your civility does you credit. Pietru (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ziaur Rahman article

Wow! I didn't realize I had made auch a mess of things with a simple date typo edit. Thank you for catching it. -- Michael David (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, his box still shows May 10 as his Date of Death when he died on May 30. Would you fix it? I won't go near it again :-). Thanks. -- Michael David (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Debresser (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edit to my userpage

How come you removed the {{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}} template from my userpage? Can you explain why the template was "incorrect", as you said in your edit summary? -- IRP ☎ 16:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, my pleasure.
The protection template was for a semi-protected page, while your page is move protected. Therefore it showed up in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates, which is where I found it.
The template is not what makes the protection, just an indicator. In this case the indicator was the wrong one. The protection itself is not changed because of my edit.
The reason I touched your userpage, which is something we try to avoid in Wikipedia, is because we make an effort to keep this category empty.
I hope this answered your question. Sincerely, Debresser (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining that. I don't mind if others edit my userpage, as long as the edits are constructive. But I think that it was a glitch, because if you look at the protection log for User:IRP, you will see that the page is semi-protected and move protected. -- IRP ☎ 16:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I had a look, but I don't see the semi-protection, so all is well that ends well. Debresser (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I think you missed it. This link will show only the log entry that I was referring to. -- IRP ☎ 16:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the later protection overrode this, because I see no sign the page is semi-protected now. Debresser (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I see 3 entries, the most recent one being Mar 17, which is indef semi protect, edit=autoconfirmed, move=sysop, with a reason of pagemove vandalism. Not sure what you were looking at, but I can confirm what IRP was saying. The page is semi'd indef. I even logged out to check it, and I can't edit it as an anon.--Terrillja talk 17:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I see. That's what I said: all is well that ends well. The page is protected, and no template error is showing. Debresser (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted your change, if it causes an error again, then bring it up at WP:RPP, just ask them to change the protection reason. My guess is the issue is that the page was protected with a reason of pagemove vandalism, but also edit protected, which is not usually done with that reason. At least not that I can remember seeing.--Terrillja talk 18:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
This time all is working fine, and I too see the protection this time. Good luck! Debresser (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for removing my content that was disrupting the page.

I am new and I am sure that I did something really dumb. I should have removed it myself. But, my error is punishing another user as well. There was an image there before my edits that was just fine. Would you mind putting it back? My edits were related to a video. Thanks for your consideration.

I would appreciate any help you could give on how to post an image with a video link.

Santonellis (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out to me that I should have been more carefull. I have now reverted the previous version from before your edits. Debresser (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You can upload any video, but:

  • until 2M;
  • in Ogg format only (because it is the only open-source patent-unencumbered video format);
  • if you are ready to provide proof the image isn't copyrighted, or that the copyright holder relinquishes his rights.

In this context you'd better have a good look at Wikipedia:Copyrights. Debresser (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Plot2

Thanks! I was using material from {{Plot}} and forgot to remove the protection template when I decided that protection would be premature. (It's hardly widely transcluded at this point.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. By the way, you are aware that just writing "pp" will not protect an article/template. For that you need an admin doing whatever admins do. You know what. Debresser (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I've done it a few times. :) What I'm not used to, though, is making templates. I think this is my second, and the first for transclusion. I used the "plot" template as a kind of recipe for making it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

B. Czaykowski

I have no idea how it worked for you - but it did! I was loosing my patience, although it looked like I was using exactly (at the beginning, anyway)the same formulas. Thanks for your rescue, have a good one - --bepege (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. Have a good look at what I did and you'll understand. Debresser (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Template loop

That won't work. The entire template is designed to be substed into the talk page of another user. User:Will Pittenger/templates should be showing it as it would appear on a talk page. Will (Talk - contribs) 20:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No. I don't even know why there is a problem. It was working fine last I knew before you posted. Will (Talk - contribs) 22:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you do your testing in a sandbox? Once you have it working, go ahead and make the change for real. Thanks. Will (Talk - contribs) 07:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

List of collective nouns by collective term L-Z

Please see Talk:List_of_collective_nouns_by_collective_term_L-Z#Cleanup. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Cite web

In my experience "url" is almost always the first parameter and "title" only second. Debresser (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

hello...i'm not sure what you mean. when using cite web: url is part of the title with display after authors, etc. --emerson7 18:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

example:

Reynolds, Jerry (1976–1994). "Chapter 30. The North Forty, History of the Santa Clarita Valley". The Signal. Retrieved 2009-03-22.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)

The way I most often see them is
Reynolds, Jerry (1976–1994). "Chapter 30. The North Forty, History of the Santa Clarita Valley". The Signal. Retrieved 2009-03-22.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)

Debresser (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

that's my point. notice that the display order is static. i changed the template examples to match the display order. --emerson7 18:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I see. That seems like a bad idea to me. Better put it in the order most commonly used by editors. Debresser (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of the adminhelp template

Hi. Please use the {{adminhelp}} template when you need admin help on your talkpage. Adding it to that IP's talkpage isn't very useful. If the IP needs to be blocked, please visit WP:AIV. //roux   18:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK. By the way, how are you? Debresser (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Tickety-boo. Busy with school. //roux   18:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Bepege

I have a noitice about your message to me - however I can't find it. If you have a message please leave it on my talk page. I noticed that we have a strange habit of leaving messages to someone in our own talk pages. It is like calling someone and asking them to come to our house to pick up our letter to them, instead of actually mailing that letter. all the best,--bepege (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Codexes of Polerio

Is it possible for you to have a look on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gcpolerio/Codexes_of_Polerio ... may it become too difficult??? I do not make own investigations (else than to compare a with b etc.)Gcpolerio (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Currently I did not put so much efforts on the wording of the initial paragraphs. Rather, I want to see first whether it is possible to organize the games of Polerio according e.g. the ECO code. Please note that these are about 250 games of which currently only 2 are shown. The question what to tell about the Codexes I have postponed mostely. I'm still not sure whether to bring all the 250 games within an enzyclopedia.

Any opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcpolerio (talk • contribs) 06:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You obviously can not bring all 250 of them. That is not notable. You could bring one or two, for example the one that earned the name "Polerio gambit". Debresser (talk) 10:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Thx - I've to departure now to London ... I think, as well, that 250 games is too much although ... to summarize them should be done by an enzyclopedia. I think I'll write a google book about it?! This may be linked. You agree.

Polerio Gambit, terminology, is already mentioned on the main page of Giulio Cesare Polerio, thus ... it should be stated something about the Codexes as well. Will think about a sort of selection of relevant/discussed games and contributions to theory by GCP.Gcpolerio (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Precisely, something especially noteworthy. Have a nice trip. Debresser (talk) 11:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I added in the URL for 2009 Kansas City Chiefs season after forgetting to put it in there in the first place. Thanks for spotting that, I appreciate it. conman33 (. . .talk) 04:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Help Request

This article Chiang Kai-shek and Kuomintang and Republic of China frequently Vandalism by anonymous IP address, so I consider these article should be became full-protected or semi-protected for a long time. thank you. 59.105.23.41 (talk) 11:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not see that much vandalism in these articles. Definitely not enough to justify protection. Not even semi-protection. Debresser (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my mistakes

Hi there. I've noticed you've been fixing quite a few articles, adding reflists whenever I forget to do so myself after adding citations. I appreciate the help. I'll try my best to remember to add them myself in the future, but it's good to know you're on the case Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. Debresser (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Same here, keep up the good work. ++ MortimerCat (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yam Templates

Cheers for your help! To be honest I wasn't really sure what I was doing, I have never made templates before, but I needed one to represent my mother tongue and the mother tongue of others. I was muddling through it and wasn't really sure if whta i was doing was right, or where to put them, I appreciate your help! Now I just hope other people use them lol

Jimjom (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Dog Problem (play)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of The Dog Problem (play), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: The Dog Problem. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The Dog Problem

Hi, regarding this, you might like to read Disambiguation if you have not already. You split the original article into two with (film) or (play) on the end, and tagged the original article for deletion. If I had deleted it as requested, any reader typing "The Dog Problem" into the search bar would not have been taken straight to an article. That's not very user-friendly, which is why we have disambiguation options. There were two possible options here - either making The Dog Problem into a disambiguation page that said "The Dog Problem could refer to: the play or the film", but that would only be suitable if there was no "primary topic". As the incoming links related to the film, it seemed that the film was the primary topic, so it made sense to make the play into a hatnote. I hope this has explained disambiguation and my actions, and if you have any questions, please ask. Thanks, Somno (talk) 08:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is a clear and good explanation. The Disambiguation guidelines page I am well acquainted with. Giving it a second thought, the best thing would probably be to move the film to The Dog Problem (film) and keep the original The Dog Problem as a redirect to that page. I think that would be the ultimate in disambiguation for two articles without a primary topic. Debresser (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: References

Sorry I don't have them. I copied it from the article Black_Cat_Bar#Police_harassment. -- Frap (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Vilina Vlas

The external link you deleted may have been to a promotional website but nevertheless it contains relevant background information and illustrations. Opbeith (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I take your word for it and I'll put it back in a way that will not cause any technical trouble as before. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's controversial, because the spa seems to operate in a context of denial of the past, but nevertheless I think on balance it's more useful to have the link rather than not, unless it causes direct offence. Opbeith (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

IP talk comment

"Please be informed that I am not interested in other edits of your here, but something's sticky here, so you'd better keep quite." From User talk:81.105.125.242. Could you please clarify to both of us what you meant there? Perhaps more civilly? The user came into the Wikipedia Help IRC room asking what that meant. S/he explained to me the events surrounding his edits, and he was making good faith'd edits, but is a newbie and didn't realized that removing {{reflist}} removed all the links. He was just trying to remove one of them. Killiondude (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ironic. I regularly work on a few categories of problematic articles, like Category:Wikipedia pages with broken references. There I see a lot of edits like the three edits of User talk:81.105.125.242, e.g. removing the references, external links, or just the whole thing starting from the references and ending with the categories. In I'd say 90% of the cases I just give a standard warning, and don't add any "personal commentary". In this case I did, and I remember thinking: "if this would turn out to be a good faith user" - which I didn't think at the moment - "then this would earn me a user warning for newbies biting". I can only say in my defense that 1. the edits he made did make the impression of repeated vandalism, and 2. that I rarely add anything to the standarised user warning, and 3. that yesterday was a hot and tiring day for me. I'll appologise on his user page. Debresser (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I've had "hot and tiring" days in the past where I've left similar remarks, so it is understandable. Thank you for taking the time to explain and apologize to the user :-) Killiondude (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed incorrect protection template

Hello Debresser. This is the second time I've notice you remove a perfectly good protection template from a page I've protected. The previous time was this. Could you please either be more specific, or preferably, fix it instead. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I found this page in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. Whenever I find a page there, I have 2 options: try a null-edit to see if the problem disappears, or just remove the template. After trying the first a few times with no result, and also in view of the sometimes high number of pages in this category, I usually opt for the second. I did receive 1 complaint before, but in general this works fine. I hope you understand, and agree. Debresser (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, how do you explain that I found this page in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates?

I notice Tupac Shakur just had the same problem. That category must be lagging a lot. Do you not see the red textbox when you edit the page? Through experience I can tell you just about the most reliable way to do this is by working with a browser where you are not logged in. Sometimes protection templates are added just before the protection. That would explain the presence in the category, sort of. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Could be. BTW, does it really matter that I removed the text? The protection is still in place, after all, and the history shows what happened. Debresser (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The protection icon, or the big protection template, are there to inform readers both of the protection status and what it means. They also add categories. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

For example, today I null-edited all 19 pages I found. That helped in precisely 0 of them. Debresser (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the lag is quite persistent. Having thought some more about your question immediately above, it may be worth asking if it really matters if the icon is not removed. The templates no longer display on unprotected pages, and there is at least one bot which will clean them up eventually. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

But one thing your are mistaken about: the template is not what adds the protection icon, because there is no protection icon on ll the pages I remove the templates from. Only in rare exceptions is there a protection icon, and I guess those are the articles you wrote me about. Debresser (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it was. The icon is displayed if both the template and the protection are in place. If there is no protection, there is no icon. Thus removing an incorrect protection template has no effect, whereas removing a correct one does. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Precisely. Therefore I should really try a null-edit whenever I see a protection icon.
I don't know about a bot cleaning out this category, because when I started, there were over 180 pages here, which means at least 5 days of no cleaning out. Debresser (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
User:DumbBOT runs fairly regularly. There is another bot which also does this but I can never remember its name. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Seoul

I've deleted the subpages that were causing the loops. Hope everything goes well for your portal! Nyttend (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not my portal. :) The person who's portal it is doesn't understand the least about template loops, obviously. But I do try to be helpfull wherever I can. Debresser (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop!

Removing or stopping me from editing the article on the Nova Scotian Settlers. First of all, the sources do no match the information I wrote in the article.

Some of the sections are inaccurate...these are the ones I removed.

The 'sources' do not match the information. I created the article and now that I wish to edit it fully, I am being stopped? The sources and references do not add up...stop trying to prohibit me from editing the article correctly....

--Wikiaddict6989 (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw your reaction on my talk page. Please let me explain. The edits I reverted (which were almost the same as reverted previously by another user) did two things:

They removed some of the references, the references section, the bibliography and the external links; They added a few small paragraphs of relevant information. Just add the information, and nobody will have a problem with it. Of course, you should preferably add sources, or the information you add may be challenged. Debresser (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

(copied from user talk page)

The sources have nothing to do with the information provided. This is why I am removing the sources. All the information I got was from one site, but due to the fact another editor was removing my information, I took some random sources and implemented them, and I had planned on putting in the correct source-the only one I used which is the Black Loyalist CDC site.

--Wikiaddict6989 (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Debresser (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I checked your claim, and I have found it to be wrong. I checked some 6 references and I found all of them covering the information in the article. In two cases they covered information that was placed a sentence or half a sentence before, so I moved them up to their rightfull place.

In conclusion I must ask you to refrain from reverting these references. If you have anything to say about this article, do so without removing sourced information, or you'll have to face the consequences.

Wishing you pleasant editing, Debresser (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of the information does not correspond with sources.

Much of the information I put in are generalizations.

I would prefer if you stopped saying my work is "vandalism" because I have already stated I plan on putting the information and reorganizing the article.

--Wikiaddict6989 (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(copied from bottom of my talk page)

Let me be clear about this: if you are going to remove sourced information again, you are risking to be blocked from editing. Debresser (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: awful

There are some users, including that, that are targeting articiles on fictional entities. Sometimes they are justified, sometimes they are not. I think that the best course of action is this one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

An article you worked on maybe deleted soon: Tools which can help you

The article you worked on: Honorverse_concepts_and_terminology may be deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:

The faster you respond on this page, the better chance the article you worked on can be saved.

There are several tools and helpful editors on Wikipedia who can help you:

1. List the page on Article Rescue Squadron. You can get help listing your page on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
2. At any time, you can ask any administrator to move your article to a special page. (Called userfication)
3. You can request a mentor to help you: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond to you before responding on the article for deletion page.
4. When trying to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. These acronyms don't need to intimidate you. Here is a list of acronyms you can use yourself: Deletion debate acronyms, which will help you argue that the article should be kept.

If the page you worked on is deleted, you also have many options available. Good luck! Ikip (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello, Ww. You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing. For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join << and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue. Ikip (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought with all your noble work saving fictional articles, you maybe interested in this group. Ikip (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is more conceptional. Instead of saving single articles I think we should work on making a counterproposal against Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_is_not_inherited: Notability is inherited. We should also use Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise as basis for arguments and proposals. Perhaps I'll have time next week. Debresser (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree, there is ongoing arguments about this now, at WT:FICT and a major RfC just closed. There simply is not the overwhelming support needed to overturn these guidelines yet. So we are stuck with a bad and broken system, were every article needs to be saved individually. By joining the ARS you gain a group of over 200 editors who are sympathetic to our concerns. Ikip (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I respectfully decline, mainly because I don't have the time for it. I will work on the "big" problem sometime soon, to the best of my limited abilities. Debresser (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleting articles about elements of fiction

Re. your comment that I am "one of those who delete fictional articles". On the contrary, I brought both TIE fighter and Mon Calamari cruiser up to GA status, and have worked quite a bit in the Star Trek and Star Wars wikiprojects to remove cruft and provide real-world information about notable topics, most recently making substantial improvements to James T. Kirk, Spock and Leonard H. McCoy. I am, however, a stickler for notability. Regardless: you may have noticed on one of the honorverse talk pages that Piotr-something pointed out the existence of an Honorverse wikia project, which might be an appropriate place for you and other Honorverse fans to migrate Wikipedia content. For the various redirects I'm putting up, I'll leave the Honorverse related categories so they'll show up in Category:Honorverse and the subcats, so you can keep track of what is/should/has been migrated. Regardless, though, the claim that I broadly delete fictional articles is as uninformed as the assertion that "about 50%" of Wikipedia editors oppose deletion of fictional topics. It is foolish -- or, at least, useless -- to try to paint either me or our fellow editors with such broad brush strokes. --EEMIV (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I take back what I said about you personally. That was just the impression I got. Sorry.
But the other statement is backed up by facts. See my arguments here. Debresser (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I've seen your arguments there and elsewhre and done my best to point you toward policies and guidelines that point toward a substantial need to cut back, or remove entirely, the cruft that has infiltrated the Honorverse content as Wikipedia. I can see on your talk page that you are an enthusiastic fan of the series -- but much of the content takes an inappropriate tone toward Weber's work. (see WP:WAF). I'd encourage you to start migrating your work to [6], because frankly per WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:PLOT, WP:IINFO, the rich details and minutiae of the Honorverse books, while a fun read, simply don't warrant the depth and breadth of coverage that Wikipedia currently has. It's for things like Star Wars, Star Trek, Halo, the Honorverse, etc. that http://starwars.wikia.com, http://www.memory-alpha.org, http://halo.wikia.com, http://honorverse.wikia.com, etc. exist -- very little of the window dressing, texture, and detail in those fictional universes have garnered significant third-party coverage, making much of that stuff inappropriate for Wikipedia. --EEMIV (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC) (If you care to respond, you do not need to put a talkback banner on my talk page; I have yours watchlisted.)
Ok. You may have noticed that many of your edits (cutting cruft, as you call it), and your redirects (of other navies that had not specifically been discussed), I have not challenged. That is because I agree with you. But I do try to maintain a core of information here on Wikipedia, that should contain all the main information. Where I think you harm this core, or meddle with (even potentially) real-world relevant information, that's where I protest. So I too am only in favor of improvement. Debresser (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Please take some time to read WP:NOT (particularly WP:NOT#IINFO) and WP:ATD -- the latter of which reads, in part, "Some articles do not belong on Wikipedia, but fit one of the Wikimedia sister projects" (e.g. wikia.com). You seem to have trouble differentiating between topics that matter in-universe (like the Office of State Security) and topics that matter out-of-universe (the books themselves, the protagonist, the author). The general notability guidelines is a key way of distinguishing between the two -- and very little in the Honorverse passes WP:GNG muster. Hate to say it, but no one in the real world has been influenced by or cares about StateSec enough to make it the subject of significant third-party coverage or commentary; it is a non-notable topic. Frankly, the various governments and groups to which I've redirected those Navy articles probably don't pass WP:GNG, either -- but, I figure with fewer separate Honorverse articles to deal with, the more the Honorverse fans can focus their source-finding/-citing. Piotr's idea of migrating the material to the Honorverse wikia is an appropriate suggestion -- it's perfectly fine to link articles that get retained at Wikipedia to the Honorverse wikia counterpart or follow-up. However, if your perspective is that migration to a sister project is de facto deletion, then you will have very little success participating in any of Wikipedia's fiction-related wikiprojects. --EEMIV (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I would agree to migration for certain articles. Again, not core articles. Let me have a look again tomorrow. It is now after 0 AM here, Ive worked and lectured today. And slept for less than 2 hours. I'm sure a 7-8 hour "Wikibreak" will be benificial to the discussion. Perhaps you make up a proposal which articles should really be migrated in the mean time. Debresser (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll say even more. As you can see above I've done a lot of work on the Honorverse articles, but except for the article about David Weber this was mostly technical and/or structural improvements. And the reason I refrained from sriously editing the Honorverse articles was, because I also noticed a lot of redundant information in these articles, and that it would be too much work to locate the sources for all the relevant parts. My reluctance to take on that project is now biting me in the posterior. Debresser (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD: List of ships in the Honorverse

Hi, I edited your comment to conform with the usual style used. Hope you don't mind. regards, LK (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do mind. For a few reasons:

  1. The word "agree" expresses not only that I think the article should be deleted, but also that I agree with the nominators reasons.
  2. It expresses my feeling precisely the way I want to expres them, and I see no real reason to change that because of a convention (unlike in article namespace, where we should adhere to the Manual of Style).

No hard feelings. Debresser (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Judaism

I sourced two statements in the article Judaism that another editor had deleted. In the process it turned out that one of them was not completely correct. Debresser (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

In response to your statement, "Wikipedia will not tollerate any anti-semitism"; as yourself this question, why is anti-semitism frowned upon and often censored yet any other anti-ideology is seem as constructive? Especially when said anti-ideology is outspoken of Europeans? It makes you wonder exactly who does dominate the media.Kolm H (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that I disagree with what you imply, your edit simply wasn't constructive. Debresser (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit

I just put up my first article (on James Price Dillard)for a class project. Thank you for editing the references to be more concise. You are a big help! Feel free to "talk" at me if you have any more suggestions to make it better. - CommScholar09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by CommScholar09 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Template

Just as a matter of interest, Debresser, what's wrong with all those "incorrect templates" you removed? Fainites barleyscribs 00:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Which ones? Debresser (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. The one on Dyadic developmental psychotherapy - but I noticed you'd removed quite a few so I assumed there must be some fatal flaw! Fainites barleyscribs 01:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The page showed up in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates, which meansthe template was wrongly added (or expired). So I removed it, and that fixed the problem.
The thing is that protection is added by two thing: the template and an admin action. Without both, we get an error. Debresser (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh. It was put there by an admin because of repeated sock action on the page. I'll check with them. Fainites barleyscribs 07:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

Thanks for fixing the citation on Order of Canada, I dont yet understand the new footnote methods. Dowew (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Why in the world are you warning User:Shirulashem?

This edit, which you said could get Shirulashem blocked, was made by Kolm H (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That's the one I meant. See what happens when you edit with a drunken head? Debresser (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Changed it. Sorry. Debresser (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Ref New Haven Power‎

Next time you mark a page for speedy deletion, you may wish to consider notifying the editor who created the page (in this case ME). The template you so marked is used by substitution, and once properly placed into an article, no longer has a "broken reference". Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

...in addition "nocontent" is NOT a valid criteria for speedy deletion of a TEMPLATE. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

For discussion see Template talk:Ref New Haven Power. Debresser (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Template talk:Ref New Haven Power. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. see diff here: [7] specifically the edit summary Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You judge for yourself. An editor makes a template in order not to have to type a reference every time he uses it. I called him the laziest editor I've met on Wikipedia so far. :))) Debresser (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on User talk:Debresser: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. see this diff [8] Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Template talk:Ref New Haven Power. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. see edit summary of this diff: [9] Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Dick, thank you. Debresser (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at User talk:Debresser, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. [see edit summary here: [10] Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you have that look? Debresser (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

See here. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|I haven't been given the opportunity to defend myself on [[Wikipedia:ANI#user:Debresser]]. When I tried to explain myself, I found I'd already been blocked.}}

Since I see nobody is unblocking me, let me be clear about this:

I was fixing templates. That's what I would still be doing if not this block. I called Wuhwuzdat lazy. And refered him to Wikipedia:Dick. Even though at least one admin has expressed his opinion that he disagrees with me (by blocking me), I still think this was completely true and correct. Even though Wuhwuzdat seems to take offense to this, I think that this is just another expression of his being a dick. I wouldn't have made a point out of this though, if not that he kept warning me. I was actually busy fixing templates. Frankly, I hope he'll be a happy dick now, and leave me to my wikignoming. Debresser (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Apart from that, I find a block based on a 40 minut conflict with 1 other editor a case of poor judgement. Instead, the admin could have told Wuhwuzdat to not take offense to my attempts to calm him down and see himself a little more objectively. Debresser (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User talk:Debresser, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. see this diff: [11]. Suggested reading material for Debresser: Wikipedia:No personal attacks Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|A 40 minute humorous conflict with only 1 editor is hardly enough reason for a block.}} Debresser (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Wuhwuzdat did not find the conflict humorous, in any way, shape or form. Perhaps Debresser should carefully examine his current state of mind before editing Wikipedia. see this diff [12]. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That was a lot of hours ago. And has no connection with my sense of humor, or your lack of it. Debresser (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|The correct thing would have been to point out to [[User:Wuhwuzdat|Wuhwuzdat]] not to take offense and see himself more objectively.}} Debresser (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that anyone has reviewed your unblock requests. I've looked over the conflict, and I don't find your conduct to have been particularly egregious. Rational minds can disagree, but I think you've been punished enough. bd2412 T 23:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I find it a little humorous, actually. But a waste of good time I might have spent on fixing templates. Debresser (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock-auto|1=77.127.84.57|2=[[Wikipedia:Autoblock|Autoblocked]] because your IP address was recently used by "[[User:Debresser|Debresser]]". The reason given for Debresser's block is: "[[WP:No personal attacks|Personal attacks]] or [[WP:Harassment|harassment]]".|3=Gwen Gale|4=1398682}}

According to Wikipedia:ANI#user:Debresser I've been unblocked, but the IP is still blocked. Debresser (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

All is well that ends well. And please see {{Ref New Haven Power}} that I've tried to make myself usefull. Debresser (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Inline refs

Any article using inline refs MUST have a <references/> tag in order to list the data from all the inlines. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't {{Reflist}} enough? Debresser (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Normally yes, but sometime the wiki software needs both for some strange reason. It confuses and frustrates me at times. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I've fixed more than a thousand problems with references, but this is the first time I see such a thing. Debresser (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I've asked a friend to have a look why this happens and how it can be fixed. Debresser (talk) 01:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, working together with you is a lot more fun than that unnecessary blowing up of a few words of mine. Debresser (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed it!! There was another {{Reflist}} somewhere inside. I removed it, and made some minor fixes along the way. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Reference list

Hi Debresser: I note that you recently added a note to the bottom of several birds templates (Podicipedidae list header and Spheniscidae list header) saying the references don't appear in any articles. Actually, they do. For example, if you look at List of birds of Madagascar, you'll see them! Can you please either clarify or remove your note? Thanks, MeegsC | Talk 07:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

In answer to your question, please let me explain.

This is the formula recommended on Help:Cite errors. It indeed is a little ambiguous. It means that the list itself is not part of the template. If it were, you would have found the whole references section including 

== References ==
''This reference list does not appear in the article.''

in all articles that use the template. The references themselves obviously are part of the template.

So the trick into understanding this is in the words this list.

If there is anything more I can help you with, please write. Debresser (talk) 08:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

So perhaps the wording should say something like "This reference list does not appear in the template". Because right now it sure isn't very clear! Thanks for the reply... MeegsC | Talk 09:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. You could make such a proposal here. But it will be ambiguous either way, so I think we'd better leave it as is. Especially since this is already used on numerous template pages. IMHO, of course. Debresser (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the options given on Help:Cite errors are exclusive to one another. There is no real need to add the text "this reference list does not appear in the article" to separate doc pages, as you've been doing, because the doc page is segregated and contains a banner at the top to show that its contents won't be transcluded. I've given the documentation an overhaul to fix this issue in a better way, which doesn't add redundant text to the templates. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm at a loss to explain why you would revert these changes with "where was this discussed" while I'm on your talk page discussing it with you, but perhaps you'd like to explain the rationale for the current version? From my point of view you're needlessly adding sections of redundant text to dozens of doc pages when all that is needed is a hidden div to get rid of the error. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed you here. Sorry. Debresser (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
That text isn't redundant. It spells out what many less experienced editors would worry about if not the message. Debresser (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Please double-check the output of the new version. It hides the references entirely on both the template and the transcluding page, so there is no odd text for less experienced editors to be worried about. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I see now what you mean "a hidden div to get rid of the error". But there is a very simple reason to prefer one of the old methods. They show the references. And that is important 1. to be able to fix them, if necessary 2. for additional information. This argument has been mentioned in discussions before and has met general agreement.

I'd say you should propose this as a fourth option. But you'd have mention the CON it has. Debresser (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I just did that. Your contribution is greatly appreciated. Debresser (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)