This is an archive of past discussions with User:TCN7JM. 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.
Deployment of first parts of phase 2 on wikidata.org are planned for February 4 and deployment on English Wikipedia for February 11. See this blog post for details and more dates.
Open Tasks for You
Test statements on the [demo system before the roll-out to wikidata.org on February 4
Support for enhanced recent changes format in client
There are automatic comments for statement edits as well in the history now
Special page for unconnected pages, that is pages on the client that are not connected to items on the repository
Added permission checks for statements, so a user that can not edit will not be able to edit or that only a group can be allowed to do some changes like creating statements
d:User:PinkAmpersand is looking for someone to write a script that once someone has been made an autopatroller, retroactively patrols all of their prior edits
Hi there, may I know why you rejected the edit on that page? If you refer to the colour plate of the jerseys put up during the previous edit, you would see that there are no blue and white jerseys. The blue and red jerseys are seen just before it goes on to 1970s. Cheers, ArcticKangaroo01:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
HI! I am trying to upload a new photo for Donna Pescow on her page with HER PERMISSION. Please instruct me on who to do this! thanks! - Nyyankbrian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyyankbrian (talk • contribs) 21:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Please put stuff at the bottom of the page in a new section, like I just did.
Simply typing in the person's name with Image in front of it and .jpg at the end doesn't magically generate a photo. You have to take the photo and upload it to the Wikimedia Commons. Then you can upload it to the article.
I'd suggest using the Show preview button rather than making a bunch of test edits.
I will put my info at the bottom of the page as you suggest and upload the photo to WIKIPEDIA COMMONS. Now I'm trying to find out how to do THAT! Ms. Pescow is awaiting...thanks. - Nyyankbrian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyyankbrian (talk • contribs) 21:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
It's not that hard. Just go to the Wikimedia Commons linked above and hit the link on the left side of the page entitled Upload file. Then follow the directions the Upload Wizard page gives you to upload the file. Oh, and you can sign your comments by putting four tildes (~) at the end of your post. –TCN7JM21:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
TCN7JM, while I think you're in the right by reverting Nyyankbrian when he removes the picture in question, I would steer clear of that article for the time being. –Fredddie™22:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Please, I do not want to be blocked. I have a new photo of Donna (Pescow) and I am working o her behalf with her permission. I did as you advised, and place the code in the bottom of the script. She does NOT want the old photo posted! Thank you. - Nyyankbrian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyyankbrian (talk • contribs) 22:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry if this isn't the place for this, but I just edited a page, and you undid it. You said it was not constructive to the article. In the article it says that 3,000,000,000 people died in the San Francisco earthquake in 1906. That number seemed a little odd to me, so I looked into it (including the external article that it linked to.) They all agree on 3,000.
If I made a mistake, posting this or otherwise, feel free to correct me/it.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.142.244 (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
No. That's my bad. I just thought 3,000 looked low. I thought the article read 3,000,000, not 3,000,000,000. Go ahead an revert. –TCN7JM23:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. You recently reverted an IP contribution to Kelowna that was actually an explained removal of content that was valid in my opinion. Please notice edit summaries before reverting these edits using Huggle; you revert can discourage the IP from editing Wikipedia now. Take time when using Huggle, thanks. TBrandley(what's up)01:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I noticed the edit summary.
I left a note on the IP's talk page saying why I put the chart back.
I didn't realize there was already another chart there.
I realize I'm in the wrong here, but I must say I am a bit insulted that you felt the need to bold and italicize the word "explain." I will be more careful with my reverts in the future. –TCN7JM01:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Blanking an IP's page
Ok, I undid it. To be honest with you, I didn't even know that I blanked it. My laptop must have spazzed out or something, because I didn't mean to, seriously. Sorry about that, anyway.The Triple M (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar
You beat me a few times too! Keep fighting the good fight :-)
Note: changed day of next German office hour to March 8
Other Noteworthy Stuff
We have a time scheduled when Wikidata will be read-only for a database migration. The window for that is Feb 20 19:00 to Feb 21 2:00 UTC.
New features and bugfixes on Wikidata are planned to be deployed on Monday (Feb 18). This should among other things include:
Showing useful diffs for edits of claims (they’re currently empty)
Automatic comments for editing of claims (there are currently none)
Ability to add items to claims by their ID
Better handling of deleted properties
More results in the entity selector (that’s the thing that lets you select properties, items and so on) so you can add everything and not just the first few matches that are shown
We’re still working on the issue that sometimes editing of certain parts of items or properties isn’t possible. If you’re running into it try to reload the page and/or change the URL to the www. version or the non-www. version respectively.
Deployment on all other Wikipedias is currently planned for March 6 (a note to the Village Pumps of all affected projects will follow soon)
Hi TCN7JM, thanks very much for your feedback on my edit to pure mathematics. I have added more content to the top of the article; take a look and see it seems more constructive. Send me a message if you don't think it's up to snuff, and you can tell me what you think it's missing. --Hierarchivist (talk) 06:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
This one is better. I reverted your original edit because you added random small text and removed referenced information. Also, in the future, please add new sections at the bottom of the page. –TCN7JM07:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I honestly didn't mean to save the message multiple times. My computer was playing up and not saving, and suddenly it saved multiple copies. Sorry for causing offence, but it was an accident. – FayenaticLondon20:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
It's okay, I guess. I just don't have much patience at all today. Sort of a coincidence seeing how I message-spammed the CfD page. –TCN7JM20:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I believe these empty categories were emptied manually. As such they don't qualify for speedy deletion and should go through the normal CfD process so that we can figure out what happened. Best, Pichpich (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Start making sense, guys. I'd like to know what exactly I'm supposed to do and you guys are giving me two different opinions. –TCN7JM20:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Now that Pichpich has raised an objection, we should leave the discussion to run its course. If you tag any more, please do it as {{subst:cfd|Category:Roads by year of opening}} so that they link to the same section on the discussion page. Then you can just add a line within the discussion. – FayenaticLondon21:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know, I don't use TW. BTW, I put a page into the 2001 category while I was looking around before I read what had happened. I've stated support for deletion anyway. – FayenaticLondon21:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Message-spamming
No worries. I just created a few as we had a few others, and it seemed the thing to do. I have no opinion on their deletion one way or the other.
As for the spamming - don't worry about it. Doesn't bother me in the least. :-)
I have been accused of being narrow-minded but I never believe people who tell me that they blanked the entire page and replaced it with something on accident. –TCN7JM00:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Well maybe I pressed Ctrl-A by accident before writing and thus cleared the page.
I believe that I actually have explained why. The use has taken it upon himself to arbitrarily delete a nomination for speedy deletion, he has responded to a number of citation requests by citing IMDB against Wiki policy, Barnes and Noble (also against policy), his own personal web site as a source, as well as numerous pages that make no mention of that which is supposedly being cited. The subject entry (and very likely the author of these entries) is filling his page with a great number of bogus film credits to add to his own obscure film credits. His notability as the subject of a Wikipedia entry is negligible, give his obscure film credits. If you take a look at the history and the questions regarding this subject, you may conclude that this is essentially a vanity page for someone whose notability is questionable at best. If you have any questions, I will be happy to answer them. Thank you! (67.234.177.82 (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC))
Well, when the user knowingly and repeatedly cites bogus sources and knowingly uses an entry to self promote and offers fake film credits, and continues to do so after he has been informed politely about it, wouldn't that constitute "vandalism." and that last tag for speedy deletion, regardless of whether it was place properly or not also states not to remove, and yet he did arbitrarily, but perhaps you didn't read that. If you feel that I am not as acclimated to the rules as you are, and I admit that is likely the case, then perhaps you could be helpful and guide me through the process of attempting to bring editorial scrutiny to an entry that may not be notable and may be a vanity page. my intentions in this matter are honest and I may need to be adopted by a more seasoned editor, so that I may properly deal with entries such as this in the future. What would I have to do now to nominate the article for deletion in accordance with wiki policy? I do appreciate your help and the time and diligence you've shown. Thank you. (67.234.177.82 (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC))
No, no. You're correct. Adding the sources over and over again isn't vandalism, though. It's annoying, yes, but not really vandalism, just failing to get the point. If he hasn't added the links since you reverted them, then there's no reason for hostility. Also, the AFD tag wasn't misplaced...it just wasn't an AFD tag. That was a user warning message. –TCN7JM02:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
It appears that the subject entry (Jim O' Rear) is edit warring and deleting my edits with no explanation. Somebody really needs to look at his edit history, as well as his fraudulent film credits which have used his personal web site, IMDB (where anyone can readily edit the information), dubious fan pages, Amazon, and Barnes & Noble for citation. If you look at the history and edits, it's pretty clear that this is a self-penned vanity page that does not adhere to Wikipedia protocol and the entry subject's notability is seriously suspect. Can some scrutiny be applied to this page? (67.234.177.82 (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC))
Lots of discussions about certain properties and how they should be used. Current state is at d:Wikidata:List of properties and new ones are being discussed at [d:Wikidata:Property proposal]]
Whether you liked my comment is irrelevent - you are censoring the truth (or your administrator "Gobo" is censoring the truth). Everyone in the flight sim hobby knows about the issues with Tom Allensworth and I portrayed this is a fair way, with citations to flightsim.com. But your man "Gobo" is part of AVSIM, and so him reviewing the comments of the AVSIM entry is laughable. He has allowed absolutely no negative aspects whatsoever - the AVSIM record on Wiki is like one big advert for AVSIM (even for their conference this year). It's so unprofessional. Jim, this really is BELOW wiki and what it stands for. This is corporate American bullying and censorship. I have donated $100 to Wiki for the last 3 years and this is my first experience of trying to edit and update a page; and it has been a real ugly experience. You will not permit ANY negative comments (whether cited or not) about AVSIM because you fear Tom Allensworth. I will be escalating this issue to the top.
Taylor page
Hi TCN7JM, you marked a page I created for speedy deletion. As it was my first page (apart from some edits) I hope you can review my 'why it should not be deleted' reasons and perhaps give me a bit more time/pointers to make the page better. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maarteno (talk • contribs) 19:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to note that your A1 tagging of Taming of the Shrew Act 3 and corresponding talk page message at User talk:GrandmaLemon were incorrect and unhelpful, giving this user the false impression that it was correct to re-create their article with more detail. There was more than enough context in this article (or even the title alone) to clearly identify its subject. Please reserve A1 only for articles where there is not enough context to identify the subject, per WP:CSD. Dcoetzee01:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay. I'll remember that. I didn't just pick this out of random, though. I couldn't find a proper CSD tag, even though the article clearly shouldn't exist. Can you tell me which tag I should have used? –TCN7JM01:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
There is no speedy deletion criterion suitable for deleting "essay" articles like this one, and it's not completely clear that it should be deleted, as it could conceivably be rewritten in the proper format, although this would obviously be a lot of work. Please feel free to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taming of the Shrew Act 3. Dcoetzee01:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.
Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:
Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.
Other contributors of note include:
Sven Manguard (submissions), whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...
March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!
A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
