User talk:Mikaey/Archives/2009/January

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mikaey. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to USS Nausett (ACM-15) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. --Happy new Headcheese!-hexaChord^2 02:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• My bad, I just formed my #REDIRECT wrong. Mikaey (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When using certain templates on talk pages, as you did to User talk:74.171.55.150, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thank you. Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 05:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as in User talk:74.171.55.150, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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. Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 05:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I just checked your contributions on talk pages and noticed that you do generally sign your own posts. I guess you just forgot that time. Don't worry as I have signed the comment for you. --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 05:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Some tools to help

Other than clicking on the sign image you see on pages you edit, there are some tools that you can use. If you use Mozilla Firefox, Safari, or Opera as your web browser, there are tools such as Twinkle (TW for short) and Friendly that may help you. These tools add extra tabs on all pages. Twinkle, for example, will add a "warn" tab on user talk pages. From there you can easily select the warning template, warning level, add the article, and any additional text. When you submit it, Twinkle will automatically add the warning template and all parameters. It will also automatically add your signature. All you do is just a few clicks. If you want to easily enable these tools without customizing them, just go to your preferences and click the "Gadgets" tab. Then check the boxes "Twinkle" and "Friendly" under "Editing gadgets" and "Compatibility function..." under "Library and compatibility gadgets". Click save and these tools will load the next time you go to an article or talk page. Hope that helps. --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 05:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Your rollback request

Hi! I regret that I must inform you that your request for the rollback permission has been denied. You can discover why by checking the archives at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Denied/January 2009#Mikaey. SoxBot X (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Stalin

My text wasn't edited, it was reversed. I was trying to improve the article by removing POV and making neater summaries.Kurzon (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Look further back at my edit history and you'll see my edits were heavy rewrites to flimsy sections, not reverts done to annoy people. Also, nobody else has really done anything substantial for this article for quite some time. In the months I've been working on it, other writers have only been adding snippets or links.Kurzon (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

So... if I added extensive justifications to my edits, they might pass? People complain that this article is biased, and I'm trying to FIX that. Also, I replaced the lead image of Stalin with a photograph, but Tocino thinks the previous painting is better. A painting, especially a flattering one made for propaganda, is inferior to an actual photograph, especially on as sharp as the one I've put in (you can even see his pockmarks).Kurzon (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Late Bloomer

I came across the AfD on Late bloomer, which seems interesting & worth keeping, but had no references. They are not really needed, since it is a summary-type article with links to fully-referenced articles on the people mentioned, but I started doing the mechanical job of adding references. Then I saw your note that the article seems to have degraded from earlier versions. In what way? Don't want to continue adding refs if an earlier version would be a better starting point... Aymatth2 (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Query about an "official page"

Hi Mikaey, Yesterday I attempted to post a page on here on behalf of an organisation for which I am currently working as an intern (FDC). Only problem was that we have a specific and official way of saying things which happens to be that of the website and several primary, so I just referenced there. In your review you stated "We cannot accept copyrighted content taken from web sites or printed sources." There are several similar non-profit organisations which have pages on Wikipedia with their official statements published too, I was just wondering if copyright still applies when you are the authorised party? Is there any way I can have this article published without changing the words away from our official statement? Also if I just change the words briefly so it is different from the website but still conveys the message of our organisational profile can it then be published? Any help would be much appreciated as I am pretty stuck with where to go on this. Thank you so much in advance RyanBEdwards (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

The user here is talking about this page from the AfC queue. I declined it because at least one section (About the FDC) seemed to be a word-for-word copy from their website. Notwithstanding any other issues with this article, would someone like to weigh in on the issue of the text's copyright status? If the organization agrees to let the text be published under the GFDL, would he be good? Thanks, Matt (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If the organization releases the text as GFDL through an OTRS email, there should be no problem with the "copyrights"; but the article as a whole has too much WP:COI and how they wrote their phone numbers and email addresses looks spamy. The article dosen't say anything about notability of the company either. Oh you were asking only about copyrights..sorry. An OTRS email would be sufficient. The relevant guide for getting the permissions is here --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 07:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Theory

You seem to be rather quick with your actualizations and undid my edit. There is nothing un-neutral about quoting dictionary definitions. Your edit is the non neutral one. To point out that the usage of the term is not as narrow as the article pretends by quoting a dictionary is quite balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.153.165 (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)