User talk:Someguy1221

NOTE: This user will respond here if you post a message. He will also watch your talk page for a response if he asks you a question.

(Archive 1, January 2007 - July 2008)

[edit] Roller Skating

I'm new to wikipedia and I'm not sure if you are even the right person to contact about this, but I got some random "vandalism" notification for fixing an out of place subject under Roller Skating. I'm not trying to vandalize your website by any means, I'm trying to help and was planning on creating a new page to correctly explain the content I removed from the original subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.7.144 (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I appologize then. If you wish to do as you described, it would be best to create the new page first before removing it from Roller Skating. And after you do, you should not completely cut the info from that page, but reduce it to a brief summary with a link to the new page. Otherwise, the problem is that we can't distinguish your actions from those of someone who's just out to delete random sections of random article, especially so long as you omit your edit summaries. In fact, just including a brief explanation of your actions in the edit summary will alay most fears that you may be a vandal. This response has been duplicated on your talk page Someguy1221 (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

And just a note, if you wish to create a new article, you'll have to first create an account. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] War of 1812

I will be happy to water down any wording that cannot be substantiate and/or which you consider to be POV. Let me know what works and I will work with you to improve. I may have been a bit excessive in my initial wording but see no reason why the intent of this copy should not be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digiterata (talk • contribs) 22:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Response on your talk page, since this started there. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I made my point. I won't revert again. Cheers. Digiterata (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

For the revert, appreciated. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 02:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for blocking that vandal ;-) Someguy1221 (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral Point of View

I get it. I'll edit it soon. Wow. That was a quick response though. lol. 68.32.102.26 (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Tabby

[edit] Casper

Someone deleted a portiion I had entered earlier on the subject of Casper. I had stated that "Jasper" was NOT a variant of Casper...which it is not. I even entered a reference on on the origin of "Jasper" which was deleted..by some unkonwn person.

Jasper is derived from the German word of the same spelling. In German it is pronounced "Yahsper" that is because it is derived from a Greek word pronounced "Yahspes". Both of these words refer to the "gemstone" we call "Jasper".

Certainly there are people named "Jasper" just as there people with other gemstone names, e.g. "Pearl", "Ruby" "Diamond" etc.

But the fact is that neither "Jasper" nor its Greek counterpart are etymologically related to "Caspar" "Kaspar" or "Gaspar"..and should therefore NOT being in this Wikipedia section. Shadrack-dva (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help on Dispersion staining images

I thank you for your assistance. Us novices need all the help we can get. Thanks again, IEQParticles (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for sharing

the late night vandal watch with me. Keep up the good work playing whack-a-vandal. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

To help keep you alert and active! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Just so you don't erroneously re-update the tally. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RADWIN and Multiple Point to Point

Hi,

I've added these pages and keep getting a message that it is blatant advertising. Please help! I will readily delete any content deemed as advertising but I really do not know what this is in reference to. Can you please edit these pages or help me out.

Thanks,

Tammy Levy

Since Athaenara (talk Â· contribs) is the one who deleted the pages, she would be the one to talk to about that. Now that the pages are deleted, I can't review the pages again. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)duplicated on your talk page

[edit] Thanks!

For reverting my talk page. :) Caiaffa (talk) 05:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit]  ;(

sorry i didnt know that i was vandilizing that page i will stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.10.132 (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AWB

Hi Someguy, I got approved for and then installed AWB. I have read the documentation but still can't work out how to do what you said it could do, i.e.

• List all pages with a certain prefix;
• List pages without a category;
• The intersection of the two above.

If you could tell me how to do this I would be grateful! MSGJ (talk) 12:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You're not actually looking for that intersection directly; the way to do this is look for the difference between a list of articles with that prefix, and a list of articles in the proper categories. But trying this now I realize it's not as simple as it should be. AWB seems unable to pull the links from Special:PrefixIndex even though it should (I suppose that's a bug or software limitation, although I am running an old version). Literally, I suspect it's unable to actually read Special:PrefixIndex. The way I've found to do this is:

A) Go to Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Articles for creation

B) Right click the page in a blank space, select "view source" and save to a text file

C) Use MS Word's find and replace to convert the list of HTML links to wikilinks, return to the text file and save.

D) After opening AWB, go to Tools>List comparer

E) List 1: Make from: Text file: Select your text file; List 2: Make from whatever AFC category is being used to tag

F) The results section will list the differences between the lists, and allows you to save these lists

Since you're able to save lists, you can perform this operation multiple times, sequentially filtering out different categories. And since it's AWB, you can then run the add category task to the list and you're done. I also see I didn't remember it perfectly; AWB only does boolean intersections and differences, but doing anything else would be easy enough with the saved lists. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, and sorry for the late response - I've been away. I followed your instructions and I was able to do it (just!). My thoughts on this: it's a complicated process. You can do it, and I can probably manage it, but I'm not sure we should implement a new AfC process which relies on editors doing this, or relies on specific editors to do a task. (We will be away at times, and everyone has wikibreaks at times or spends their time in other ways ...) Do you still think a bot could do this task? MSGJ (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

A bot writer presumably would have an easier time working around our own limitations, and of course could have it run automatically. But as you suggested earlier, it seems reasonable to have us attempt the process manually and tweak as needed before asking for a bot. As for the broader issue, it's inevitable that a system that relies on the management of dozens of subpages a day rather than one is going to be more complicated. And a system that requires the proper and changing categorization of those dozens of pages a day will inevitably leave some requests in an uncategorized #FFFFFF hole. We know that a lot of newbies get the existing process wrong; how many got the new one wrong? I didn't observe the test run. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well if it makes the process more complicated then we probably shouldn't even be considering implementing it. We have a perfectly good system currently and should only change it if there are clear advantages. I think there were about 1 or 2 submitters who somehow managed to delete the category in the 24 hour trial; as it was on such a small scale I was able to catch these. I am not so worried about a few slipping through the net from authors who can't follow the instructions. However we need to make sure that if the request is submitted again (by the same of different author), that the category is added. Preloading a template does not work if the article already exists - we can get around this by adding a new section (like what happens currently with the single submission page). Any thoughts?

If we can sort out this problem then I might suggest we trial it out for a full week and then decide if it's worth it. MSGJ (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Resubmissions does seem a likely problem. We all know how often an anon attempts to resubmit by altering the original submission, even many months after the fact. Since those anons necessarily failed to notice the note telling them to resubmit on today's page, presumably the same number would fail to notice something telling them to change the category of the submission. Added to that is the difficulty of anyone finding the submissions in the first place (maybe such anons will not be able to resubmit improperly, then...) but if they did, it would be a lot more pages to watchlist should we decide to give a damn. A bot could handle either (by detecting edits to archived submissions, and also by transcluding submissions to a daily page for easy finding) but a completely bot-dependent system could be prone to, well, anything that might happen when the whole project depends on one guy running his bot on time...Someguy1221 (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I may have found the best solution to this problem. Following a link such as this one brings you to a preloaded template on a new section of a page, with the section already filled in. In this way, each new submission with the same title will go in a new section (they will all be called New Submission but that's okay) and the template will be added again each time. What could go wrong? MSGJ (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NOR question

Someguy, I noticed that you frequently comment on questions in WP:NOR/N. Would you kindly take a look at the thread Ahmad ibn Ibrihim al-Ghazi, & offer your opinion? Thanks. -- llywrch (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well the comments are already in and consensus appears to have formed, so my particpation in the discussion would probably not help much. But to place my opinion in case you still want it, the offending section violated OR because it contains an analysis that was not present in any of the cited sources. This is prohibited, in fact, by the nutshell itself: Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

And if you want another opinion, I can say that it is very obvious OR, unless you can cite reliable sources that actually carry out the same analysis, in which case the issue might involve WP:UNDUE instead. --Philosophus ^T 00:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, whether or not your opinion would be of use, Causteau thinks that both of your statements are, & repeated them at the Noticeboard. I hope that his act was not improper. -- llywrch (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for reverting that. It seems the browser on my Blackberry can't handle the large size of the GWB article. - auburnpilot talk 05:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mouse scroller

Hey, I noticed your comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#fff1ffnks are running away from me about your mouse scroller not working right in Firefox. That is truly unfortunate. Have you tried the Opera web browser? It's very small (8.5 MB), works quite well and quite fast, and is certainly better than IE6. Hopefully your mouse scroller will work with it - at the very least it's worth a shot. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Never...again...Believe me, I've tried most things. But a friend of mine did today give me another work-around, and that was to fix the computer I used to use, so I'm all good now. Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, nice! So, does Firefox work for you now? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it will when he fixes it again...Someguy1221 (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TV Links

You can see on their forums, All of them are the original tv-links staff. I have also spoken to one of the admins and he has said he recently agreed is in touch with the .co.uk admin over talks with the domain. Trust me this is not another clone or mirror. This is run by the original staff. You can signup on the forums yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvloriginal (talk • contribs) 09:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AFC proposal

	WikiProject Articles for Creation needs your input!
	I have made a detailed proposal for a new entry process for WP:AFC. As you were involved in the discussion after the last trial, I particularly invite your comments at the page WT:WikiProject Articles for creation/Proposed new entry process#fff2f0cations and proposal for new trial. Thanks! MSGJ 09:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] COI Response

Someguy1221:

I don't see the issue with putting the article's author's name on it and confirming the date upon which the article was last edited. I am an employee of the station and I know for a fact who wrote the article, who put it on wikipedia, and that the information is correct. There is no conflict of interest because the person who runs the station and wrote the article gave the go ahead to make this page. Furthermore, I believe the person who wrote it deserves credit. If you could reply to me, here, with some accurate justification, I would appreciate it.

Thanks, 70.60.160.102 of WSTB/88.9 FM Radio

17:01, 1 September 2008

Reply on your talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AFC submission

Well done with the new template. I found a small problem with the cv version. For example

{{AFC submission|D|cv}} should produce the general message, but instead it produces {{AFC submission|D|cv}}. {{AFC submission|D|cv|http://ipht.cea.fr/en/Phocea-SPhT/ast_visu_spht.php?id_ast=447}} did not produce the expected result. It also produced {{AFC submission|D|cv|http://ipht.cea.fr/en/Phocea-SPhT/ast_visu_spht.php?id_ast=447}}.

Cheers, MSGJ 16:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; fixed. This problem was also actually with mergeto and exist...Someguy1221 (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to say that it is still not working perfectly. If you look on my sandbox you will see what I mean. MSGJ 23:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The template is reading the equals sign as a parameter definition. I unfortunately don't know how to make it not. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I doubt that will happen often. MSGJ 11:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The user-side fix for that is to explicitly state the paramenter name; i.e., use the template as {{AFC submission|D|cv|3=http://ipht.cea.fr/en/Phocea-SPhT/ast_visu_spht.php?id_ast=447}}. It may be a limited enough case that users of the template won't need to be worried about it, though. —C.Fred (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you check my work on the {{AFC completed}} template please? I don't think I've broken anything. I was wondering about combining all these templates into the {{AFC submission}} template, to tidy things up - any other advantages/disadvantages to that? MSGJ 16:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It has the problem I figured earlier was causing cv-n and cv to break; the templates above attempt to feed the website parameter even if none is provided. This was why the ifeq statements has the peculiar form you might have noticed in my version of the template. I'll try to fix this now. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

OK; a couple pipes and it works fine. I suppose that what I should have done in the first place...As for compiling all the templates? If you want to attempt a nested switch, be my guest ;-) I personally thought having seperate templates (and moving the reasons out furthered this goal) makes the code easier to understand. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I might try to do this because there are common elements between all these tags. It is only the colour and some of the wording which changes. The reason I separated the reasons was to make it simpler to add new ones. But at the moment it's in a subpage of a template which is not even called from, if you know what I mean ... Anyway I'll ask you to check everything before I make the change. MSGJ 15:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As you probably realised, I gave up trying to combine them all. The code was getting too complex. So I hope that putting them in subpages is the best solution. MSGJ 10:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability RfC

I've made a list of points needing to be addressed for B.6, because the approach may be viable (User:Vassyana/RFC notes). I am trying to address the caveats and opposition raised while maintaining coherency and sticking to the approach of the proposal. All the points raised seem like they can be addressed without contradiction. Your comments on the sandbox talk page would be appreciated, to make sure I'm staying on track. Vassyana (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your help in the Wikipedia:Help desk.

(I have a few follow-ups though.)

Yartett (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linda Greenhouse

If there was something inaccurate or misleading in the quotes and statements I added why don't you correct them. I don't think it's appropriate that you simply removed addition. Since she was rebuked by her own editor, and as the quotes show other leading writers, and the story was widely reported, I don't know how you can argue that she wasn't widely criticized. But if you have better wording, go for it. I'm putting the information back in the article.(Wallamoose (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC))

[edit] AFC status

Hi template-expert ;)

I was wondering if {{AFC status}} could be automated using the number of pages in Category:Pending Afc requests (which is 12).

MSGJ 18:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll take some time to play with this later today. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I got an automatic version working. Seems to be working right now, anyway. Let me know if it keeps working as the backlog changes size. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be good! MSGJ 23:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I hope we never see 7000 pending submissions!! By the way, you'll never see your level 0 because currently the redirect submission page is permanently in that category. MSGJ 08:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh shucks. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There; I made it more accurate ;-) Someguy1221 (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

How's this for the most unusual place to put a submission? :) MSGJ 12:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually this and this are pretty crazy as well. Don't know how they even found that page! MSGJ 12:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that was certainly worth a laugh. And I didn't even know those pages existed! Although including even before this AFC system existed, I have occasionally seen people post articles to the most random pages - WP:HD, WP:EAR, WT:AN, so on and so forth...but those pages beat them all, I think. I really wonder what goes through some people's minds. I was going to suggest a feature be placed in {{AFC submission}} that it would include a category:request in wrong namespace if that's the case, but then, I'm sure anyone who manages to post his submission in the IT namespace is the same kind of person who would delete that template...Someguy1221 (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Would be a nice feature, but yes you're probably right. After all, none of these had the template on. MSGJ 16:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, did you find these through any means other than simply watchlisting all the AFC related pages? I wonder how many other submissions are out there in even more obscure locations...Someguy1221 (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Just seen this. I happened to notice it by looking at the related changes to a category that those pages were in. MSGJ 15:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reviews

>a search engine result is not a source, please cite an actual review. That said, amazon does contain reviews that could be considered RS

Fair point. How best to handle this? Would links to the reviews pages suffice? Thanks.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Amazon hosts external reviews as well as producing its own. Its own reviews and customer reviews aren't reliable sources, but most every other review it includes is. You can use a link to the reviews page, but the title of the cite should include the publisher that actually produced the review you're citing, along with a note, "hosted on Amazon.com" Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Carney

hey i have a question.. this is kicken4life..... im related to john carney and we are having problems with a certain person. they keep changing information in his personal section and i would like to know if there is a way to prevent it. It is causing unnecessary grief on my family, and is a form of harrassment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kicken4life (talk • contribs) 19:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

hey i dont understand you said i have threatened somebody..... i have not done that because i have no means to. anything that i have said is truthful, im a 17 year old girl, soooooo add that to your box of cherries

cheerrs bro

k —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kicken4life (talk • contribs) 01:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Replies on your talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ajay data page

I am a press reporter works with media and tried to published one article on Ajay Data , which you rejected. I think he deserves to be put on wiki and would like to know how i can help to make the article more meaningful and make it available... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajaydata (talk • contribs) 09:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply on your talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quicken Loans

Last year you got a message from Glenn from Quicken Loans about updating the Quicken Loans Wikipedia page. Glen left the company and I've taken his place. I have a editing request and I'd like to run it by you to avoid any conflict of interest. I want to update the Quicken Loans profile to reflect our new reverse mortgage company, One Reverse Mortgage. I'm requesting the first sentence change from:

Quicken Loans Corporation is a retail home mortgage lending firm in the U.S. Quicken Loans Inc. is comprised of the Quicken Loans, Rock Financial, and Title Source, a settlement service provider.

to:

Quicken Loans Inc. consists of the QuickenLoans.com online lending site, the Rock Financial brand in southeast Michigan, One Reverse Mortgage, based in San Diego, California, and Title Source, a mortgage settlement service provider.

Thanks, Mike MDetroitKid (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as long as this is documented somewhere, such as an official website or in a news report. If so, best practice is to include a citation, at the end of the sentence, to the website or report (see Help:Footnotes and Help:Link#f1f1ffal links). Official websites are OK for uncontroversial facts such as these. When you want to make uncontroversial changes to the article, feel free to edit the article directly (I review all contributions to the article, so I will see your edits with certainty), but please cite sources as best you are able. As an employee of the company, adding or removing anything controversial (infromation relating praise, criticism, lawsuits or firings) should still be suggested in advance. Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: AFC submissions

Thank you for letting me know. I've been away for a while, and, the new system is very unfamiliar to me. --EoL talk 19:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zeitgeist

I'm looking for a compromise. I really think that a lack of basic knowledge is an important part of this discussion. The movie is so flawed in terms of the economic concepts that no credible economist will bother making any commentary in writing; it is almost like I have to prove that 2+2=4. I have real experience in this field as I work and teach in the securities industry so I thought I could lend a helping hand on this subject. What info or reference would make you happy? Seriously? Too sleeply, forgot the signature. Sorry. Friedonc (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikicookie

I am awarding you this WikiCookie for your constructive edits on Wikipedia--LAAFan^sign _review 21:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikicookies are my favorite kind. Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

When adding content to an article, please take care not to create false references. Unless the citation you are placing actually refers to the topic of the article or section you are editing, it is probably a false reference. That is, if you are writing about what John said about Bob, then Bob's writings can't be used as a reference. You have to use something John said as a reference. But if Bob is actually being discussed, then his works may still be useful as a link - either internal links directly in the text, or in an external links section. Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be sure to keep that in mind. Could you please help me out here? 4v4l0n42 (talk) 08:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)