User talk:Schierbecker/Archive 2

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Orphaned non-free media (File:PersonalLifeMedialogo.png)

Thanks for uploading File:PersonalLifeMedialogo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Schierbecker. You have new messages at Yunshui's talk page.
Message added 08:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yunshui 雲‍水 08:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

OKPay

As requested, I've restored the article to your userspace; it's now at User:Marcus Qwertyus/OKPay. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 14:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Schierbecker. You have new messages at WP:RFPP.
Message added 04:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

‑Scottywong| chat _ 04:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

hello, you have just transfered my article to Georgian Wikipedia. Can you add my name there too pls? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ნინო ყვავაძე (talk • contribs) 19:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Edward T. West

A7? G3! Drmies (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Merely declaring an unannounced intention to run for president in 4+ years isn't intrinsically notable enough. Is G3 even relevant? It may even not be false. Or are you are referring to his ineligibility to run? (Which is also A7) I believe the article said he would run when he was 30 (eligible age is 35 in the U.S.). I'm over-analyzing again. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Chocolate is always a good answer. Marcus, if I ever need a gladiator on my team, you're the first one I call. Drmies (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Stop NRHP list-article page moves

Hi Marcus Qwertyus -- Would you please immediately stop moving pages of name type "National Register of Historic Places listings in..." and allow for discussion instead. I object to many/most/all of those moves and the names have been consciously chosen by NRHP editors.

I am fully aware of exactly what USNAMESWP:USPLACE says. You can use USNAMESUSPLACE in making arguments for what NRHP list-articles should be named, in a new discussion, but USNAMESUSPLACE itself applies strictly to city articles, not to NRHP list-article names. Would you please acknowledge this and agree to stop with further moves immediately? --doncram 14:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I was unaware. Where is that discussion or, better, the guideline? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for replying and, i guess, stopping. I meant to say WP:USPLACE where I said USNAMES above. If you read USPLACE (which by the way is under discussion at an RFC at its talk page), it is about the city articles themselves, and basically says use "City, State" in their article titles for most U.S. cities. About where the NRHP list-articles names are discussed, well, all the list-articles have been created for the most part, within List of RHPs, but new ones are split out occasionally such as was done for northern vs. southern sections in what was National Register of Historic Places listings in St. Louis, Missouri, split by me recently. It has been uniform or nearly uniform practice, by NRHP editors, to keep the State name in. It could be discussed, I guess, at the wikiproject NRHP talk page (wt:NRHP) or somewhere else with notice given there. However, I think there's no real benefit to changing the naming practice, or discussing it. For one thing, different than for other types of articles, including both City and State in the NRHP list article titles is helpful for clarifying that the Nation involved is the U.S. I would hate to see "State" cut out of many of these, only to have someone else come in and insist that "United States" be added. I.e. i think "National Register of Historic Places listings in Boston" is not better than "National Register of Historic Places listings in Boston, Massachusetts", but "United States National Register of Historic Places listings in Boston" is horrid. --doncram 02:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes I assumed these would be mostly uncontroversial after no one raised concerns of my moves of a couple thousand neighborhood articles in July. I likely won't be up to starting another requested move or discussion before this weekend. If this is too long I will just move them back for you. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 10:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I noticed editor Nyttend moved back the several Cincinnati, Ohio ones, so I just further moved back the others, some with edit summary "restore State to name, consistent with all other NRHP list-article names AFAIK. US:PLACES does not apply, strictly. Open to discussion somewhere." I think that moving them back quickly avoids some complications, if additional edits at any of the articles would prevent further moves. The ones i moved are, i think, Denver ones, Houston ones, Boston ones, San Francisco, Pittsburgh, Miami, but some have downtown or southeast or northwest or other variations. I am open to there being an organized discussion somewhere, but as i indicated i don't particularly support really considering any moves. --doncram 01:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Subpage

Any idea why User:Mariagvozd would create this subpage in your user space? Assuming it was done without your authorization, I will delete it for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That one was user-fied in my namespace per my request. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I should have looked at the history, but I came at this through the back door (CSD). Any idea why Mariagvozd would now have recreated the article (Okpay), which has again been tagged for speedy deletion?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
And created at least a few times under Okpay in addition to OKPay. Probably another oDesk gig. I disagree strongly with the current CSD for this page (tagged by an inexperienced user) which in its current form contains little identifiable advertising, much less "exclusively promotional" content. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Not sure how much has changed in the latest version of the article since the last delete. Perhaps you should take it up with the deleting admin or to WP:DRV (I haven't looked to see if you've done either)?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Very little though even the last deleter (assuming we are thinking about the same deletion) said s/he was mistaken to delete it as G11. If anything it is A7. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you near St. Louis now or will you be?

Hey Marcus, I'm writing an article at User:Ryan Vesey/Temp about a defunct mine about 30 minutes away from St. Louis. It hasn't made it into the article yet, but the land has been reclaimed. It would be great, if you have time, if you could get me a picture of the area. In addition, I'm curious if the O'Fallon, Illionois historical society [1] the St. Clair county historical society [2] or the Belleville historical society [3] have any old pictures of the mine in operation. Thanks if you are able to try to get any of this and it's not problem if you're too busy. Ryan Vesey 18:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I might be going by Hollow 1 next week when I am back in St. Louis. Do you know the exact location and if it is still visible? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for taking a while and it's alright if it is too late, I was able to find a PD image of the mine. The best I have on the location of the mine is that Mine no. 1 is at Township 2 North, Range 8 West, Section 32 and mine no. 2 is at township 2 North, Range 8 West, Section 33 but that doesn't mean much to me. You can see the mine locations on this map Mine no. 1 is on the right side in green, Mine no. 2 is directly to the right of that and only partly shown, it is outlined in red.
Actually, I've found it. Mine no. 1 is at [4]. I did a search for "St. Louis and O'Fallon Mine" I'm certain that's accurate because it is roughly 1.5 miles Northeast of Birkner. Some specific things it would be great to get pictures of are the 3.5 acre pond slighly north of the pinpoint marker, the softball fields, and the tennis courts. (They were all created in the reclamation process). It's no problem if you're nota ble to get there, but thanks if you can. Ryan Vesey 04:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
There's actually a "Negro Hollow Creek" (seen here) A picture of that might be useful if possible. Ryan Vesey 04:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
With the help of someone from the historical society I'm learning more and more. The pond I talked about actually appears to be part of what was Mine no. 2. If you look at this. You'll notice that both Lawrence Lake and Aubaka lake appear on both maps and the pond created in the reclamation does not appear on the geological survey. The pond is surrounded by Longacre park trail and there's a playground on the East side. I don't know if it was part of the reclamation or if it was built later, but it is certainly on the grounds of the old mine so it would be nice to get a picture. Ryan Vesey 04:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I independently figured based on your first pdf map that no. 1's shafts were near 500-504 Liberty Rd which is a little off from your mark. [5]. If I'm near that area when it is daylight this week (relatives in Roxana) I will be sure to check it out. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense, it looks like my original mark was actually on the no. 2 site. It's possible that the shaft was filled in during the reclamation but there might be a marker of some sort. Ryan Vesey 13:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't able to get to Illinois during the window of time I wanted to. Sorry. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

WikiProject Wikify: November Newsletter and December Drive

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Wikify, 22:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Libraries

Still planning on doing something next weekend? My schedule is a little crazy Saturday, but I'm game.--Chaser (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Communication with the Botanical Garden has become intermittent. Last I heard it would have to be held on that Friday due to a conflicting event at Webster Groves Public Library. I will suggest instead having a Google+ hangout. I still plan to pay the BHL a visit in a few weeks and maybe you would too? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

DYK for Unnamed 2020 Mars rover mission

The DYK project (nominate) 16:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


Cheyenne Bitware and Net2Phone

Hi Marcus, remember how Win 98 used to have Cheyenne Bitware, a fax and pc phone calling app, and Net2Phone (a VOIP calling program) preinstalled? Do you know of anywhere where i can download it for my current pc? I wish to have those old apps, the version around 1998-2002, to use for my current pc over my broadband internet for calling friends and family. Thank you in advance Nguyen1310 (talk) 05:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

For old times sake? Dude, save the trouble and just get Skype on Windows XP. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

Orphaned non-free media (File:Edmodo log-in page.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Edmodo log-in page.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for the swift removal of another user's questionable comment from my talk page--enjoy some Christmas baklava! Khazar2 (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
nom, nom, nom, nom. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Baby Browning

Can you help me understand why you moved FN Baby Browning to Baby Browning? The Naming Policy of the firearms project states that "The names of firearm articles should start with the proper name of the manufacturer, followed by the firearm's name." In addition to this, every other weapon manufactured by FN starts with "FN". See: FN FAL, FN Five-seven & FN F2000 for a few examples. I am still new around here so I want to make sure I do things right but it seems that article should definitely have "FN" at the start of it. --Zackmann08 (talk) 04:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you are right so I have reverted my move. The XM2010 rifle article should stay at its current location according to that policy however. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I concur with you there. I wasn't aware that XM2010 was the military designation because the civilian version is market under the same name. Thanks again and happy holidays! --Zackmann08 (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

Question about User Draft Space

Hi! I just received a message from you asking me not to draft article content in my user space and then copy it to the encyclopedia (specifically, you flagged Lodgepole as a copy-and-paste). I have been using the same procedure for several years now and am confused about how you recommend that I should draft articles. Thanks for any clarification you can offer. --Jgmikulay (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Draft as you had before but at a unique title (ex: User:Jgmikulay/example). When you are finished drafting you can move it to the mainspace via one of the dropdown menus to the left of the search bar. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Also can you attribute yourself like I have done at Talk:Lodgepole (sculpture) and User talk:Jgmikulay/WSPA for each article? Thanks. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The aether

I just wanted to mention that your speedy deletion tag of The aether was rather WP:BITEy, since you placed an A3 tag on the article just 2 minutes after it was created. Usually, with A1 and A3 speedy deletion tags, it's best to wait at least 10 minutes, and sometimes more, before tagging, to not scare editors off and to give them time to develop their articles. However, I have gone ahead and deleted the article.--Slon02 (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The Republican (Springfield, Massachusetts) ‎

Hi Marcus, it appears you moved The Republican (Springfield, Massachusetts) without consensus. There is an ongoing discussion over here. Thanks for your efforts, but considering there is an ongoing discussion it would be better to bring your move ideas to the talk page first. Thanks Tiggerjay (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I was unaware. See my new comments on that page. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

Talkback

Hello, Schierbecker. You have new messages at WP:CFD/S.
Message added 01:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust The Homunculus 01:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Schierbecker. You have new messages at WP:CFD/S.
Message added 09:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust The Homunculus 09:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

RfA3

Hello Marcus Qwertyus. I noticed the edit you made to the closed RfA3. I am not concerned that the information is being added after the close, but you did break the numbering sequence. Please replace your ::indentation with #:. Thank you. --My76Strat (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Hey what ever happened to WP:Incorporate All Rules? It was a good read and valid contrarian view. Better than that amateurish straw man WP:FOLLOW. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 11:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome Marcus Qwertyus. I really appreciate your expressed understanding of that essay. I took a good pummeling over that essay with near unanimous agreement that it was written for every bad reason imaginable. I couldn't convince anyone that I wasn't trying to disrupt. You're practically the first that ever called it a read, let alone good. I thought it had potential for good, but I had it deleted after it sat userfied in my account, and more shit was hitting the fan. Anyway, check your fix, I think you put :# where you should put #: I got to go for a few, I'll talk to you again. --My76Strat (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I undid your courtesy blanking of RfA3; the edit comment was misleading. Has there been some discussion approving such a blanking? Glrx (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
No because having a discussion would defeat the the purpose of the courtesy blanking (the Streisand effect). No discussion is needed. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Re:WikiCup rollback

Yeah, OK, thanks. It's under control, I left a message explaining the issue on the user's talk page. (I'm not really sure about calling an argument about rules a "content dispute", but that's a different issue...) J Milburn (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Super. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

Speedy deletion declined: John Patterson (Ohio state representative)

Hello Marcus Qwertyus. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of John Patterson (Ohio state representative), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: From what I can tell, the article was not created by a banned user. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 13:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

Speedy deletion declined: Bob Doyle (politician)

Hello Marcus Qwertyus. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Bob Doyle (politician), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The page has had substantial edits by users other than the banned user. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Raised at AFD. Ryan Vesey 14:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, that was my mistake. I missed the fact that the other substantial edit to the article was also made by a sock. (*embarrassed*) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering how you could have missed it, and then I remembered I'm using a script that doesn't come standard. If you add the following script to your common.js page, it will strike the usernames of blocked users. Ryan Vesey 14:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
importScript('User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script.js');
That's a lot easier to see - thanks for telling me about it. I was relying on popups before, but that requires that you actually check every contributor, which obviously didn't work in my case. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

Speedy deletion declined: Charles Fry (politician)

Hello Marcus Qwertyus. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Charles Fry (politician), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not in violation of his block, which was for multiple accounts. . Thank you. GedUK  11:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I had some sort of brain fail. I've deleted it now. GedUK  11:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sound and fury

Please comment on Sound and Fury at Talk:Sound and Fury Ego White Tray (talk) 06:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Middle-distance running

Per your previous comments in Talk:Long-distance running#Requested move, please see Talk:Middle distance running#Suggested move. Thanks! Location (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Episcopalianism in the US

Hi, I have moved your proposal from WP:CFDS to WP:CFDW. You added that "A separate category would be needed needed called Category:Episcopalianism in the United States" so I have put a reminder about this on WP:CFDWM. I assume you know what is needed, so please do it after Category:Episcopal Church in the United States of America goes red. – Fayenatic London 09:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

Fort Alexander (St. Petersburg)

Hi Qwertyus, please revert your moves of the Fort Alexander (St. Petersburg) article to Fort Alexander (St. Petersburg, Florida). The fort is in Russia, not the US. In the future, please check the article itself before assuming you have found something that needs fixing. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

AP style

Hello Marcus, I reverted you on several recent undiscussed moves and I see you've done many more. Adding the state names to sub articles such as List of tallest buildings in Jacksonville where there are no ambiguous articles is unnecessary for disambiguation and just adds verbiage. The "AP convention" is for main articles; it doesn't suggest we should force the convention into sub-articles where further disambiguation isn't needed. I see these moves have already caused some trouble with Fort Alexander (St. Petersburg, Florida) and Bank of the West Tower (Albuquerque, Mexico). I'd appreciate it if you'd stop making these moves in the future. Cheers, --Cúchullain t/c 14:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Cúchullain. Skyscraper/building articles and tallest building lists have a naming convention separate from the US city-naming guideline, as determined years ago by WP:SKY. Please stop adding additional disambiguation to article titles without first initiating discussion. Cheers, Rai•me 16:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for finding my mistakes. Somehow I'm not sure I would have found all of those.
I was aware some projects sometime institute a kind of local consensus, for instance the NRHP project, but I wasn't aware SKY had one. NRHP articles skew toward the full name like NRHP listings in San Francisco, California which is unsightly but more clarification never hurt anyone. I will get around to addressing this eventually but the list of tallest buildings situation is more pressing.
Part of me, mostly the journalist part, cringes when I see list of tallest buildings in Mobile. It would be the same as an article called History of the Cardinals under Pujols. Maybe you should think of St. Petersburg, Florida as the Common name and not as disambiguation. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, for one thing, "St. Petersburg" is the common name; it's just style convention and sometimes disambiguation that makes us add the state at the main article. And second, in articles like Bank of the West Tower (Albuquerque), the parenthetical is for disambiguation only - it's only there to distinguish from the other Bank of the West Tower. "Albuquerque" adequately distinguishes it; "New Mexico" is just added verbiage. Again, the style convention doesn't need to be forced into every sub-article, it adds nothing and can lead to mistakes. In the future, please don't undertake all these moves without discussion.--Cúchullain t/c 18:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
St. Petersburg is a city in Russia. In parenthetical disambiguation, nine times out of ten the state is going to be used and if anything more is needed, a city can be added. So Albuquerque is the "verbiage". The rare exception is cities on the AP, and not even in all cases. I would much rather it be "Bank of the West Tower (New Mexico)". Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The state is used as the disambiguator where appropriate; the city is used where it's more suitable. While a lot of articles use both, there's no need to add the extra verbiage when it's not required to disambiguate the article. Nothing is served, and it can lead to mistakes as we've seen.--Cúchullain t/c 21:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
When do you feel it is more appropriate to use a city without the state qualifier? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The city is used when that would be a better disambiguator - for instance articles on buildings or features particular to that city. "Bank of the West Tower (Albuquerque)" is a superior option to "Bank of the West Tower (New Mexico)" since it needs to be distinguished from the building of that name in Sacramento. Using "Albuquerque, New Mexico" is acceptable, but it's hardly necessary or universally done, and there's no reason to force it in.--Cúchullain t/c 22:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Just because there is only one Mercy Medical Center in cities called Springfield, doesn't mean Springfield alone is sufficient to identify the subject. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd argue that it is sufficient, though Springfield is a particularly ambiguous city name, much more so than Albuquerque, Miami Beach, or even St. Petersburg. I see that's another article you moved without any prior discussion.--Cúchullain t/c 00:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Contrary to popular belief, Wikipedia will not run out of letters anytime soon. Titles can be one character or 208 or anything in-between. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
However, per the naming criteria articles should be concise, and no more precise than necessary. I'm sure we could go back and forth all day long, but the bottom line is that those moves are neither demanded by the guidelines nor uncontroversial, so we'd appreciate if you'd stop making them without discussion.--Cúchullain t/c 14:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

RfA: thank you for your support

Marcus, I wanted to take a moment to offer my sincere thanks for your support during my RfA. It did not have the hoped-for conclusion, but I will work to show myself deserving of your support in my future editing. Thanks again, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

Shopping malls in Los Angeles County

Please see WP:CFDS re Category:Malls and Shopping Districts in Los Angeles County, California: I opposed Category:Malls and shopping districts in Los Angeles County, California as inconsistent, & suggested Category:Shopping malls in Los Angeles County, California as C2C to match others in Category:Shopping malls in California by county. Only shopping malls are categorised; "shopping districts" are not clearly defined. – Fayenatic London 15:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Schierbecker. You have new messages at WP:CFD/S.
Message added 23:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust The Homunculus 23:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Episcopalianism in the United States

I suggested at User_talk:Marcus_Qwertyus/Archive_2#Episcopalianism_in_the_US that you set up Category:Episcopalianism in the United States after Category:Episcopal Church in the United States of America goes red. In the end that didn't happen, as the latter was redirected rather than deleted. Do you still think that Category:Episcopalianism in the United States is required? I'm not clear what else should go in it, otherwise I'd do it myself. – Fayenatic London 16:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I started Category:Episcopal Church in the United States as I think I originally suggested. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks. As a one-cat cat, I'm not sure what it achieves, but I'll remove the note from WP:CFDWM now anyway. – Fayenatic London 22:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

SAIC RM

Hi Marcus, I think you'll agree the RM at Talk:SAIC (company) has languished long enough. It's probably only the either/or question that has stalled it—no one's actually against a move. Would you be ok with SAIC (U.S. company)? That seems to be the most popular option, with only one user specifically against it. --BDD (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Fine by me. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll make it happen. --BDD (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like someone else beat me to it. Sorry to keep spamming your talk page... --BDD (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Alexa Internet.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Alexa Internet.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

St. Petersburg Union of Artists

A tag has been placed on St. Petersburg Union of Artists, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Camyoung54 talk 15:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Native American -> Native-American - WHUH??

This is totally wrong and defies any conventional usage; change it back and don't change any others. Did you think to consult {{tl:NorthAmNative}} or see the article on Native American/First Nation naming issues; in fact the Native American (no hyphen) title is problematic in the Canadian and Mexican context, but we've let that slide for now; but the hyphen is TOTALLY WRONG.Skookum1 (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I realized that so I moved those four back. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

Adopt me

Hi Marcus, how is it going? It's going great for me. My day will be a lot more great if you would like to adopt me. Vicstars 13:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Vicstars. Of course you may become my adoptee. I'd like to help you get started here. Can I get some of your interests so that I can suggest some things for you to do? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, I have interests in those following articles:
  1. Cary Grant
  2. Boris Karloff
  3. Grace Kelly

Vicstars 22:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Consider adding yourself to the WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers member's list and dropping a hello on their noticeboard. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Military vehicle countries

I've replied on my talk page. DexDor (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Schierbecker. You have new messages at WP:CFD/S.
Message added 15:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

It's for Category:KBJ designed buildings. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Four-digit years in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

My edits in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers concerning 4-digit years in date ranges were based on several things:

  1. Consistency. It is a long-standing guideline in Wikipedia to provide consistent information and formatting in articles. The best example of this is the recommended usage of consistent dmy or mdy date formats; if an article is predominantly using one date format, continue to use it. So it is with date ranges; if there is already a predominance of 4-digit years in the article, Wikipedia guidelines would suggest keeping it that way.
  2. Clarity. Sometimes it makes more sense to our readers to see a 4-digit date. For example, the range 1900-07 is, at a glance, difficult to understand because of the three consecutive zeroes. The range 1900-1907 is clearly easier to understand.
  3. Shades of Gray. As has been discussed several times by the Wikipedia community, Wikipedia guidelines are not intended to be black and white, that there is only one right way and everything else is wrong. Rather, they are guidelines to follow in most cases, with exceptions allowed when the exception makes sense.
  4. WP:BOLD. The most important Wikipedia guideline.

Please note that my edits did not change the basic statement that it is preferred to use 2-digit years for the second year in the range. Rather, the edit simply said it may be acceptable to use 4-digit years in some circumstances. we request that you reconsider your revert. Cheers. Truthanado (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Your move of several pages including List of rail accidents (1990–99) (apparently to follow the 2-year date range guideline in WP:YEAR) has caused both confusion and an unwanted proliferation of redirect pages, neither of which is desirable.
  • Confusion. Each of the pages has a selection box in the upper left that uses 4-digit years (ex: 1990-1999). It confuses our readers when they click 1990-1999 and the page they get is titled 1990-99, not what they clicked.
  • Undesirable redirect pages. Redirect pages have their uses; this is not one of them. Redirect pages increase the number of pages that Wikipedia servers must maintain, and also slow down user response. The WP:REDIRECT page gives reasons for creating redirects, and :2-digit years is not one of them. In fact, item 2 in WP:R#DELETE indicates that these List of rail accidents redirect pages are candidates for deletion because they cause confusion (see the comment immediately above).
We suggest that you carefully consider your future usage of 2-digit dates and their effects on Wikipedia and, in particular, our readers.
Cheers. Truthanado (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
You're points are noted. I'll have detailed responses to all of them tomorrow. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I haven't seen your responses. Would you please tell me where they are posted. Cheers, Truthanado (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the delayed reply. Midterms and schoolwork kept me from writing. *grumble, grumble, grumble*. Consistency is fine but it isn't harmful to clarify the intended meaning in the text. For example the W. E. B. Du Bois article can spell out the full name in the lede without appearing indecisive.
The list on WP:R is not intended to be exhaustive or exclusive and I don't see any potential for confusion. At proposed moves I have not seen a single move opposed for causing incoming links to point to a redirect (possible exception: when many links will point to a disambiguation page). Redirect pages are only deleted if they are harmful and you will not find many at WP:RFD who will agree to delete harmless redirects. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 05:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit summary - Keynes

I laughed when I read your edit summary "profoundly meaningless" on John Maynard Keynes. Quite a nice oxymoron! – S. Rich (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Well I gotta reward those that still read edit summaries! Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 05:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

open-source vs open source?

Why would you move a page based on a stylistic convention that is not the least bit standardized with no discussion or prompting to move that page? Centerone (talk) 06:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

MOS:HYPHEN calls for a hyphen in compound adjectives. Is that your question? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Joke's on me?

My contributions list is currently looking rather interesting. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Just don't make me decide to ruin your progress by moving it to "WP:April Fools Day/". :) Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 09:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hi Marcus Qwertyus. I have posed a question about your proposed speedy rename of Category:Liffey class frigate at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy#Current_nominations. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 04:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

Soltam M-66

Hi marcus it was me who deleted the section which indicated that Iranian vafa mortar is a copy of M-66,I should point out that it was me who originally added this part to the article but after sometimes it became clear that M-66 is different from vafa(specially in tube) and there is no source about vafa being a copy of Soltam or that somehow iran acquired M-66 and copied it. Farzam1370 (talk) 09:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I would say you are right in reverting if there is no source. However Dave1185 has reinstated it so I would talk to him. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, Marcus Qwertyus, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Here are some pages which are a little more fun:

  • The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users!
  • Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!

We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-vandalism0

Template:Uw-vandalism0 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Marcus Qwertyus

As subject title for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aylesham and the link http://telly.com/AllenVincent489#!BJP0TU

Should I change the title? What can I do to make it acceptable to add my link ?

Thank you

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.255.243.212 (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It won't be included because it isn't relevant to the topic of Aylesham at large. See our informational page on what can and cannot be included: WP:ELNO. I hope this helps. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

To Marcus Qwertyus. Thank you for prompt response. The closest rule that might be against my link appears to be No: 10 but Telly.com is not a social networking website, in fact it is a video hosting site. I ask you to please reconsider. I don't know what more to say except Mum and I are desperately trying to expose what is happening to us as we are on Autism Spectrum and we are trying to get help.

I will leave it at this but if there is any information I can give you that will help allow my link then please feel free to be proactively helpful.

Thank you. Allen Vincent 15.4.2013 approx 12.25hrs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.255.243.212 (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

ASD? Same here man. See #13 and also #4. More relevant: WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations from STiki!

The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar

Congratulations, Marcus Qwertyus! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

The Fighter (2010 film)

Hi Marcus, You recently declined and then removed my request for a technical move of The Fighter to The Fighter (2010 film) with the summary, "Would be controversial since the move was done by consensus." Please could you tell me what that means. Was the article page previously moved from The Fighter (2010 film) to The Fighter? As you can see, both pages lead to the article (one is a redirect). The reason I thought it better to have them swapped around is because The Fighter (film) currently leads to Fighter (disambiguation page), wherein the list of films are all presented with the year of release apart from the 2010 film. I'd also suggest that The Fighter redirect to Fighter, and The Fighter (film) redirect to The Fighter (2010 film), but perhaps that would be controversial. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Your guess is correct. See Talk:The Fighter#Requested move. The Fighter (film) also correctly (in my opinion) redirected to the 2010 film for a time. If you do not object, I would like to change it back. There are procedures for proposing a controversial move. See WP:RM/CM. I think I will abstain from opposing if you make the proposal. Regards. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately you've left me none the wiser. The original move was initiated by you (although a simple redirect would have sufficed, IMO), you declined my request to move it back and now you think I ought to propose a 'controversial move' which you would not oppose?! In all honesty I don't really go in for overly officious shenanigans on Wikipedia, I just edit for fun. I tried to move the page as I thought it would normalize things. You disagree? Then I'll leave it there. No worries. nagualdesign (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

Year pagemoves

I've just noticed this series of moves, and I'm not sure they're all appropriate. WP:YEAR is intended as a style guide for running text, not specifically as a rule for article titles, and it feels wrong to me to use the shorter form (xxxx-yy) in titles. Byzantine–Sassanid War of 602–628 reads more naturally than Byzantine–Sassanid War of 602–28, and it's worth noting that that article in particular has gone through a peer review, two A-class reviews, a GA nomination, and FAC without anyone commenting on the title.

Dropping AD, on the other hand - Roman civil war of 350–351 - makes perfect sense, so please keep doing those ones! Andrew Gray (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I feel it is more important to keep the titles brief than running text. At any rate, the title should match the running text for the same reasons as ENGVAR WP:CONSISTENCY. I'm not surprised it went as long as it did without comment. I have moved plenty of uncontroversial FA pages for other reasons (hyphens instead of en dashes etc.) Resolving the three-digit years are less of a priority for me so I think I will put that on the back burner. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it should be forced to match - if nothing else, it's very rare to actually use the full form of a title like this in the article itself! As a title, 620-28 feels wrong to me in a way that inconsistency doesn't, and I think this may be one of those cases where a literal reading of a rule produces undesirable results. I'll leave some comments around and see if we can get a third opinion. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
On rereading WP:YEAR, incidentally, it is explicit on recommending xxx-xxx for three digit years ("For clarity, years with fewer than four digits should be written in full, (355–372) (not 355–72)"), so if we do go with this as the rule, we should leave the shorter ones. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The three-digit exception is a new one [6] and apparently hasn't been discussed or at least mentioned. This is the second time in recent memory that I've been surprised by one of this editor's bold policy changes. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I've left a request for third opinions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Years in titles. Thanks, Andrew Gray (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I prefer full dates. Otherwise, for example, "The Great SNAFU of 903-05" may be read by some as "...of May 903". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply for you!

Hello, Schierbecker. You have new messages at FT2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify's August Newsletter



Your Wikification Newsletter – Volume I, Issue IV, October 2011


To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Schierbecker/Archive 2! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Unprotect talkback

Hello, Schierbecker. You have new messages at HereToHelp's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Schierbecker. You have new messages at HereToHelp's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Inventing the AIDS Virus

I've made a comment on this page you may find of interest.Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion notice

You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#RFC-birth date format conformity when used to disambiguate so I thought you might want to comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Birth date format conformity .28second round.29.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Amphibious vehicles by country

Category:Amphibious vehicles by country, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Science fiction

I'm sure your intentions were of the best, but people don't attend science-fiction conventions or buy science-fiction novels: we attend science fiction conventions and buy science fiction novels. It may not be entirely logical by your standards, but it's the reality of common English usage. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Fine by me but you may want to bring List of science-fiction films et al. into consistency if that is the way we are going. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

Century Theatre

After you created the disambiguation page Century Theatre, you apparently forgot to modify all the incoming links to point to the new target, Century Theatre (New York City). If these are not changed, the change would seem to be more detrimental than beneficial. Since there are a lot of these links, changing them will probably take quite a lot of work. (Perhaps this can be automated. I don't know.) Since a disambiguation page only becomes really necessary when there are more than three pages that need to be disambiguated, it may be easier to move Century Theatre (New York City) back to Century Theatre and use hatnotes for disambiguation instead. What do you think? --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Check back later for reply. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Good job! --Robert.Allen (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Miracle (1912 film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

Car automation info

If you really want to get nerdy and know more about the NHTSA levels of vehicle automation from the Verge article you linked to, here's the actual NHTSA report (PDF). The levels are explained starting on page 4. I think the vehicular automation article is very much on target about levels 1 and 2, while the autonomous/driverless article we're talking about is pretty specific to levels 3 and 4, so I think we have a good separation of articles already. And keep in mind the nuanced but important distinction between "autonomous" (self-governing) and "automated" (labor-saving). The perfectly understandable confusion people are having about this point is one of the reasons why I think the easier-to-visualize term "driverless" (or practically anything else that describes the technology, but "driverless" seems most common) is a better title than "autonomous." The fact that NHTSA calls everything just a different level of automation could further confuse people, even though autonomous systems really are just a very advanced form of automation. Pdxuser (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Julie Tristan may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Amphibious vehicles of the Cold War

Category:Amphibious vehicles of the Cold War, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 05:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Border Peaks

Um, yes it IS a proper noun, please research before making a change; it's in the treaty....and while "Border Peak X" is a proper name, times 150 or so, "Border Peaks" is stupilated in the treaty. It was named that way for a reason.Skookum1 (talk) 08:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Border peak or boundary peak? Mild Bill Hiccup is the one who actually made the change in the first place. His grammar checks out if you ask me. @User:Mild Bill Hiccup, what say you? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 08:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Look at the citations (of which there is a plethora). This isn't about grammar, this is about official names and terminology and style specified by international treaty. See further comments on User talk:Ground Zero, who is another Canadian editor like myself, and also comment on the article talkpage which is linked from Ground Zero's. Yes I'm t he architect of that page, but there are issues with such a change that defy any imposition of WP:MOS on official names. There's a reason they were all-caps "Border Peaks". And see the BC-Alberta one where that term or phrasing is not used, because they are not named/legally defined as such (and not all define the border but simply are on it, or are named because they are on it (e.g. Intersection Mountain. As I recall, though I haven't read back over the talkpage yet or scanned the article history, the title of that page evolved. "List of Border Peaks" wasn't accurate or specific enough and "List of Border Peaks specified by the Alaska Boundary Award of 1903 overly so, and cumbersome; the current title is awkward, but unavoidable. And the product of not just myself, but others who helped work/develop the page and its title.Skookum1 (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
To me I would assume that we would treat this just like we would handle list of fire departments in Los Angeles: while Fire Station No. 14 is reasonable, "List of Fire Departments" isn't. If that isn't the crux of your argument, forgive me, I'll prattle on. The references I browsed before moving the page said nothing about "Boundary Peak(s)" in running text, while the first few sources I found in Gbooks treated it as a common noun.[7] I'm always skeptical when someone wants to go by what is official. The U.S. Army advises capitalizing the word "soldier" at any mention. Obviously that directive isn't followed here. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you're quite right. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
To me the phrase "to me, it would seem" is an indicator of original research and opinion. That this discussion is going on at all - and such comments and equivocations are being presented to defend the move, means that it should not have geen speedied, and should have been an RM. And you should read up on these, and investigate the treaty as I indicated. The more accurate title (that I think we discussed long ago) was "List of summits named "Border Peak" in the Alaska-British Columbia/Yukon border", or something along those lines. Border Peak itself could be used, in fact, as though formatted as a list table and with a geotemplate, it's essentially a dab. Note that "border" was used because of the terminology used for "US-Canada border". The title was arrived at be consensual discussion; your move was not.Skookum1 (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
"Border peak or boundary peak" is a clear demonstration that you don't know the subject, nor did you read the sources nor looked at the citations nor understand the history behind these names or the treaty that created them. I'm getting tired of having to do RMs to correct unwarranted speedies like this one; if I were an admin, I'd have reverted this myself. If you want to argue that the legal name should be reverted, it's you that should have tried an RM, and IMO it would fail. This should be reverted forthwith. This is no more valid than changing Boundary Ranges to boundary ranges.Skookum1 (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

iOS

Marcus. I don't have access to the general internet from this machine. That's the reason I forgot to add the citation. I will do the edit later, once I have my hands at the proper sources.

Thanks for your message. Carlos Osuna207.248.54.99 (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm looking forward to reading that. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Information on removal of copyrighted contents on Pinterest

Hello, Schierbecker. You have new messages at WPSamson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks WPSamson (talk) 05:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

St Louis Wiknic

Can you create a WP:Wiknic page for St Louis, maybe at Wikipedia:Meetup/St. Louis? I saw they;'re been some interest at Twitter for the STL Wiknic...--Pharos (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

CFDS thanks

Thank you for nominating all of the non-English-foreign-language external links categories. If I can get the bot working, I may start the bot on these early, as I've had a few inquiries now about why the redlinks are starting to appear post-template edits. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The University of Missouri edit in the AAU article.

Hi Marcus,

I visited Mizzou's website before I made the edit and it is based on information that is current as of the day of edit, which I obtained from their website and the AAU's. The University of Missouri website displays "University of Missouri" as you noted, but changing the name on the AAU article to reflect that is incorrect. The AAU, which is the topic of this article, lists only "University of Missouri-Columbia" as a member of their organization rather than other campuses of the system. The University of Missouri is branding for the system and the website reflects their current branding for their campus, but the AAU website lists the official name as supplied by the institution to the AAU. Universities change their branding frequently, but not their official names. The AAU website is updated frequently when official names are changed, such as when the University of Colorado at Boulder became officially the "University of Colorado Boulder." Colorado officially changed the name of the campus and no longer uses their former name (all offical documents of the University have been changed) and the AAU updated it within a couple of weeks of the change. If you go to the AAU's website, you will only find the name "University of Missouri-Columbia", which is also the official name for the flagship campus. As such, editing to the "University of Missouri" is not consistent with the website just as changing all of the University of California campus names to just "University of California" would not be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpfitzgerald (talk • contribs) 07:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

Can you remove this item?

Dear Marcus Qwertyus

Please can you remove the three leters V. T. E, in the bottom of the text (box on right side) here[[8]]??

Thanks --Yamoulat (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)--

What?

I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Daren420c (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253&diff=504546478&oldid=504433436]. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That was almost a year ago and at the time Anwar al-Awlaki's Wikipedia article had been renamed to the alternate spelling of Aulaqi before being reverted back to Awlaki, which is the only reason why I made the changes you referenced. Check the date on his article for yourself, my edits were with good and honest intent, certainly not vandalism.

However, you're correct that it should also have been reverted on the Northwest Airlines Flight 253 article much sooner and I would have done so myself but I've long even forgot about making those particular edits. Daren420c (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That isn't the problem. The spelling was justified then. It is just the altering of the spelling of al-Awlaki's name in several headlines and at least two direct quotes from newspapers that causes problems. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 05:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay I understand now you're right, I'll make sure not to change direct quotes from references in the future. Thanks Daren420c (talk) 06:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

Category:Military vehicles of the United States Marine Corps

Category:Military vehicles of the United States Marine Corps, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 05:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Amusement Park Quarter 3, 2013 Newsletter

WikiProject Amusement Parks Newsletter

Quarter 3, 2013

463 124 5.13 50 30% »
Full edition
Unassessed Articles Coordinates Needed WikiWork Load Project Members B&M articles are GA or FA

23:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

Category:Medical evacuation vehicles

Category:Medical evacuation vehicles, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

A Barnstar!
Great American Wiknic Barnstar
You are awarded this mighty Great American Wiknic Barnstar for your valorous efforts in helping to organize the 2013 Great American Wiknic in the great city of St. Louis. -—Pharos (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Aaqib Wikia

Can you join this wiki link. --216.54.100.70 (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Schierbecker. You have new messages at WP:CFDS.
Message added 08:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust The Homunculus 08:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikileaks edits on Presidential scandal

Hi! I noticed that you didn't accept the latest revisions to the Wikileaks article and puzzled at why. Is it because the contributor didn't provide any citations? Please note that I have seen this news too, and I'm very concerned about it. I have reliable sources like the last person (The Guardian, CNN, Wikileaks), but I'm a new-comer to Wikipedia and I don't really know how to cite very well. Would you please reconsider these edits, and maybe we can work out something later? I'm watching this story right now on GB7 news. Thanks. 212.36.226.185 (talk) 04:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hil-ar-i-ous. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 05:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Schierbecker. You have new messages at WP:CFDS.
Message added 10:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust The Homunculus 10:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

STiki emergency

Wikipedia:Meetup/St. Louis: Wikipedia Takes St. Louis 2013

Hi Marcus! Could you maybe put up a stater page for Wikipedia Takes St. Louis 2013, so that we can link to it from Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes America. You can just use last year's Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes St. Louis 2012 as a base if you like.--Pharos (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Follow on Incremental Capabilities

Category:Follow on Incremental Capabilities, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 05:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

Edit war

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at iPhone 5s shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Please achieve consensus before repeatedly making drastic changes. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 September 2013

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 16:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 September 2013

Talkback

Hello, Schierbecker. You have new messages at WP:CFDS.
Message added 06:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust The Homunculus 06:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

October 2013 Wikification Drive

This message was delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To stop receiving messages from WikiProject Wikify, remove your name from the recipients page. -- EdwardsBot (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:CFDS

There are still 3 of your nominations in the "Current nominations" sections (Super Bowl related trophies and awards, WikiProject Science fiction related WikiProjects and Super Bowl related lists), with alternate target names. Could you make your opinion about them clear on the page? Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 07:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed/requested move of multi-boot

Hi Marcus. Can you tell me how you submitted this requested move? Curious because I noted two section headers and would like to try to fix things so that a redundant section header isn't created by mistake. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Got it. My mistake, I copy pasta'ed the WP:RM template and added a Proposed move section but forgot to take off the now-redundant "Requested" part. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

List of newspapers in the United States by circulation

I was following the method suggested at sections 6.10 or 6.13 of Help:Sorting. Is there a better way to make the numbers static? If so, please feel free to improve the list. Woodshed (talk) 09:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

That's better. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Red light disctrict (disambiguation)

Hi there. I'm going to replace the automated message with a personal note that you created an implausible typo in Red light disctrict (disambiguation) (the first "c"). I've placed a speedy tag on it. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the typo, however for future reference, moving a page yourself is a relatively simple process that does not require a speedy. Regarding the later swap to A10, you should first make sure there is no content to merge and even then, it should be redirected instead of deleted. Regards, Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 07:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I know, I just wanted the move to be done without a redirect, as was the case; I didn't know how to do that w/o an admin. But I suppose I could have redirected your duplicate and poorly named disambig page to the preexisting page, then tagged the redirect as implausible and have it deleted that way. It would still have required an admin. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

Please comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HD media player

Greetings! As a member of WikiProject Computing, You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the Article for deletion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HD media player. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! Thanks. 188.245.75.122 (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

The CCI you requested has been opened

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/America789 is now open. Thank you for flagging the issue. If you can assist, it would be very welcome! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

PAK FA and F-35

Hi Marcus, thank you very much for your response to my questionnaire I'd issued back in 2011. I apologise for not following up with a reply -- I've been busy with schooling and other areas of Wikipedia. Please forgive me.

Like you, I really want to see Wikipedia improve various stealth aircraft articles, particularly Sukhoi PAK FA. This aircraft seems to be the talk of the town at the moment, and boy does it look good! If you are interested in a future revamp of the article, I'd like you to check out the various English editions of the Russian magazine Vzlet, some of which have very fine details of the aircraft, to give yourself a good understanding of this jet (if you don't already). You might also like to get access to WP:HIGHBEAM, which contains fantastic articles of the Sukhoi jet. In the meantime, I'm building up a respiratory of news and article links about the aircraft in preparation for the revamp. Many hands make light work, so it would be great if you are prepared to contribute, and get others to contribute, to this small project.

Regarding F-35, the article is really bloated, and actually requires a tightening instead of an expansion. If you're not aware of them already (which I doubt) and if you're interested, Flight International and Flightglobal provide great coverage of the jet's design and manufacture.

But for the moment, I want to concentrate on the Russian jet. Thoughts? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 11:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

A barnstar for you!

The Minor barnstar
no problem, marcus Kenneth16622 (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify: November Newsletter and December Drive

Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To unsubscribe remove your username from this list. EdwardsBot (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Evan Spiegel

The article Evan Spiegel has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Fiddle Faddle 23:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

Difficult communications channels within Wikipedia

This is intended as a reply to a comment I believe you directed at me regarding an article about someone named Abu-Bakr Yunis Jabr. Since I have no idea what that was about, I believe that I was there because of spam, specifically the kind of spam that attempts to exploit Wikipedia's credibility for the sake of victimizing suckers. It is already bad enough that they are robbing people with the help of Wikipedia, but the larger threat is that they may start vandalizing Wikipedia in support of their scams. In the examples that I have noticed previously, it appears that the scammers are weaving their scams around existing articles, but if the spammers think they can make another nickel by 'customizing' the articles to support details of their scams, then you can safely bet they will do so. Having said that, I do think that Wikipedia's anti-spammer efforts must be at least moderately effective insofar as I have noticed less spam of this sort recently. (Or maybe I've just been too busy to notice it?)

I would guess that in the case of this article I added an anti-spammer warning to the front of the article to counteract the spammer's pitch. Usually I also add a comment in the Talk, per your suggestion in the comment to which I am replying, but it sounds like I did not bother that time, probably because I was in a hurry (as already noted, but which is not true today, obviously). I usually include a suggestion that there should be a convenient mechanism to add such warnings with automatic removal after some period of time.

Now for the background about the "Difficult communications channels within Wikipedia". Your comment addressed to me was from last April, and I had no idea you had said anything. I have no idea why it was called to my attention today. My actual goal today was to add a suggestion in Talk to the Hadoop page. I do feel there is a weakness in the article, but I don't know enough about it except to add a question and hope that someone else can address it... I basically like Wikipedia, think it is a good idea, and I use it with trust pretty often, but at this level it feels like a closed community and makes me feel like an alien intruder. Shanen (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I figured out one small part of the large mysteries of Wikipedia... I clicked on the top right "Talk" link instead of the "Talk" tab for the article where I was trying to ask my question. Either I've never noticed that "Talk" link before (which is quite plausible) or it's a relatively recent thing. However, mostly I remain in my usual state of confusion. Shanen (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Haha. Talk pages are one of the more convoluted systems in place here, so no worries. You should get an orange "You have new messages" placard (formerly a large orange banner) at the top of the page if you get a new message. Its conceivable you missed it until now or it was latently delivered.
I can't pick up on what scam you are talking about. Can you point it out to me? Normally we would just revert on sight until the page could be "edit protected." In addition to the talk page (which was a good idea) there are various noticeboards you can post to. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
The scam was in email, but lately I haven't seen much spam that is using (=abusing) Wikipedia. I don't know if I can claim 'the kill', but I did add a number of warnings back in the days when the spammers were citing Wikipedia fairly often. Essentially the spammer is trying to make the scam see more plausible by basing the cock-and-bull story on an actual article or story that appears on some legitimate website with recognized credibility, and the spam includes the appropriate link. Of course, there is an added threat in the case of Wikipedia, in that the spammers could be motivated to vandalize Wikipedia to create a better scam. I don't think most of the spammers are so good at planning, but right now there doesn't seem to be any barrier to adding special bait to a Wikipedia article and waiting some period of time before launching the spam.
However, that does give me a new idea for an even stronger countermeasure than the temporary warnings (which I already suggested). If Wikipedia had a mechanism to collect the spam that references Wikipedia, then the spam itself could be analyzed to see which parts of the article are most closely linked to the scam, and those reputed facts could be checked more carefully. I'm not saying that everyone should donate some time to reducing the spammers' profits, but I think LOTS of people hate spam and that many of them would volunteer a bit of their time if better anti-spammer tools were available... Shanen (talk) 07:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I think the community would be strongly resistant to any public notices within the article (WP:NDA may be relevant). However if the spammers' edits are directly affecting the article (either through misinformation or indirectly cheapening our brand by association) I'm sure others would be all ears if you have any ideas. You can cross-post this conversation onto Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam if you like. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 11:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)