User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2010/February

This is an archive of past discussions with User:AmandaNP. 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.

(Cleared TB. 14:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)) Airplaneman ^talk 05:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Oh, thanks :)  fetchcomms☛ 02:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

They are verifying that your email has been received at (email redacted) for use of the photo, although it has been approved verbally by Alexa Hampton to use the image.

Amarxsbpr (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the status update. I am sorry I didn't get to this in time. For the time being, we will leave the image off wikipedia. When I have the consent form (via email, because we can't accept verbal), I will ask you to reload the file, then, I will send the consent in to our Volunteer team and they will take it from there. Thanks for showing the interest. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 21:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Amarxsbpr (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Ok I will be in contact once I receive the clearance form. Do you have any other suggestions for the page's completion before it is moved?

I am going to put a few more edits. I will let you know when I am done. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Still needs clean up with references per Bios of Living Persons. "Citation needed" or "Original Research" incidcates the cleanup. Also, I have removed some sources, you may want to look at the page history. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 00:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

(removed tb 20:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)) --Michael Kourlas^{talk – contribs} 02:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Getting to it, sorry for the delay. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi MWOAP, I was running across the GA candidates and noticed you had marked off that you would review Windows Product Activation on the 23rd of January, but haven't completed it yet. Are you still working on this? If not, I'd gladly take it off your hands. If you are, no rush, I just wanted to make sure you hadn't forgotten! Thanks --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have actually started it, and I have been completing some other reviews. I will get to this one this weekend. Thanks for keeping up with me on that. (And I forgot to set myself offline last night if that confused you. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 14:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you're trying to prove a point, or out to make a name for yourself at RFA, but frankly asking candidates to explain half the CSD criteria is a singularly useless exercise. It's available for anyone to see at WP:CSD. Questions are for teasing out your impression of a candidate (and hence their fitness for adminship), not to create essays or get responses, when the answers cannot be found by a decent review of a candidates contributions. Pedro :  Chat  20:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Not trying to prove a point, it just seems that everyone does ask them & they wern't mentioned on these. I will take a look instead of posting them there. Please, do not assume I am trying to make my name known! I am just trying to get to know the editors, because "Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections". Thanks. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Also I would like to note that this is not half the CSD criterion. It is only four of like 30. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi MWOAP - re-reading my comment it's more agressive than I intended. I'm just saying that asking questions for the sake of them is clearly pointless (I understand that's not your point) but also any question where the answer is easy to find is also without value. A better question (by way of example only) would be "what is your interpreation of G10". I'm just one who tends to think questions at RFA should only be to resolve fine points for individual candidates, not balnket questions for all. As an example, if a candidate has 800 correctly deleted speedies do you think your stock questions would add value? Best wishes, and happy editing, and again apologies that my tone was more forthright than it should have been. Pedro :  Chat  21:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That is very true, it is a bit pointless. I will work on that. I will also reword it so that it doesn't seem like I want a copypaste. Happy editing. Thanks. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 21:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No, thank you for your consideration. Just an honest criticism and not a slight on you at all. Best. Pedro :  Chat  21:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, per your request I am notifying you that I responded to your question. Thank you for your participation.--otherlleft 16:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Responded at WP:RFA. 02:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi MWOAP, your review of Windows Product Activation was recently commented on at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations and I wanted to notify you. I believe the article did not deserve to be approved because it resembles an instruction manual, which is not for Wikipedia per WP:NOTMANUAL. Questions about the lack of independent third-party sources were also raised. Regards Hekerui (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Re'd at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations 02:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Windows Product Activation has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Responded at Talk:Windows Product Activation/GA3 02:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to weigh in on my RfA. It was successful, in that the community's wish not to grant me the tools at this time was honored. I'm taking all the comments as constructive feedback and hope to become more valuable to the project as a result; I've also discovered several new areas in which to work. Because debating the merits of a candidate can be taxing on the heart and brain, I offer this kitten as a low-allergen, low-stress token of my appreciation. --otherlleft 12:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am alergic two kittens if I have them for over two weeks around me, although it is absolutly adorable. Thanks for the thought. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 02:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to archive it before you break out.  ;)--otherlleft 03:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering why the Time Warner reference (#7) cannot suffice as a source for both the This Old House and Find! facts in the Television section. That article acknowledges both items. I have either removed the other facts for the time being or addressed the citation issues. would really love to get this live!

Amarxsbpr (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that is fine if it does both, we just put them at the end of every sentence. The only things that needs refs before we make it public is the awards. Then you can take it public. Just a note, but I still haven't received the email for the image. Sorry for the delay. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey MWOAP, could you change the non-inline citations at Siva Shankar Baba to {{Cite|...}}? I'm not very familiar with those cite templates. Thanks! Samwb123^{T (R)-C-E} 23:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I will, just it might take a while to get them up there. (I am a bit confused with the citation style too.) -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 00:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

AmandaNP/Archives/2010/February - Thanks for your participation in my recent successful RfA. Although you did not express confidence or trust in me, the community did and as you are an equal part of that community, deFacto your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 10:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am fairly new to Wikipedia and have been making occasional edits to articles. I noticed you reverted a couple of my edits on the Broadcasters' Audience Research Board page which is fine, however beside the revertion it said that my edits had been identified as vandalism.

The IP I was using is 82.18.164.15 though I now have an account.

Actually they were not vandalism. Edits according to Wikipedia may at times be misguided or ill-considered but that is not the same as vandalism.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism; although reinserting it despite multiple warnings can be disruptive (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW). Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful thought may be needed to decide whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well-intended, or outright vandalism.

I see you did in fact send me a message, and thanks for doing that.

Also I am still trying to figure out how to do edits, and sometimes have to undo my own edits.

Being new on Wikipedia, I would like to get off to a good start - if you still consider my edit vandalism maybe you could let me know why?

All the best with your editing.DMSBel (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I am assuming that you are talking about this edit. "I am inclined to take audience" seems to indicate that you have a point of view that does not belong in the article, the article is for the facts. Also the other content seems like you are questioning the article. This is to be done on the talk page of the article. That was my reason for the revert & notification. That is why I did that. Let me know about any questions. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 21:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If that was listed under my IP then I had forgotten its a while since I edited that article. If that was all there was, just "I am inclined to take audience", then thats fine to take that out, I probably got mixed up in the edit and didn't finish what I was going to type. That's fine - just wanted to point out that it was not vandalism, or maliciously intended. All the bestDMSBel (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for telling me!  fetchcomms☛ 04:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi MWOAP, Hope college is treating you well. Have added references to this page. Can you check when you find time and let me know how it is coming along? What is IRC channel?

God's Flute (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

With the books, could you please use the referencing tool I gave you on the review page please. Some people have requested it so they can understand it. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 11:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Done, MWOAP. Sorry, I thought I had done it right, and only today realized where I had gone wrong. Thanks! God's Flute (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Re your "No reason for a redirect" summary - the reason is per WP:INTDABLINK (as stated in the original Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects#Redirect request: Stars & Stripes (disambiguation) listing) which says: To link to a disambiguation page (rather than to a page whose topic is a specific meaning), link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that's a redirect – for example, link to the redirect America (disambiguation) rather than the target page at "America". (If the redirect does not yet exist, create it and tag it with {{R to disambiguation page}}.) This helps distinguish accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones. - just so you know for next time.

I re-listed Stars & Stripes (disambiguation) and it's now been created. 92.0.52.136 (talk) 04:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Please resend the image consent form to (email redacted 21:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)). I will make sure they receive it this time and return it completed. Amarxsbpr (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I will resend it for you. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 21:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

while waiting on the image, i'd like to take the page live. i've made corrections you suggested so with your ok, can we make that happen? Amarxsbpr (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It is up. I got another user to review it too. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw that you said this page had cleared copyvio. I also noticed that you mentioned that the encyclopedia of company histories was an unreliable source. This is a page that is populated by the company profile on Hoover's but does not require the registration Hoover's requires. I believe Hoover's to be a fairly reputable source for company information. Does this help at all? Thank you for your review. Nroth82 (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Nroth82 20:23, 18 February 2010

I missed the fact that it wasn't specifically answers.com (which can be edited by anyone) & that it was made by more reliable sources. Sorry about that. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 21:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I am very excited this page was created. Thank you for your help. One question: How do I get the page to show up now if someone searches for Maritz. Is there a way I can get it listed on the search results with Paul Maritz and the Maritz Rebellion? The company's name is Maritz, so I think that is what most people will search for. Thank you again for your help. Nroth82 (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that it has been added to the search. Thanks again! Nroth82 (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ya, I saw your note this morning and posted it, just had to leave class before I had a chance to re here. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 21:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't Srbsko be the dab page (per WP:DABNAME) and Srbsko (disambiguation) be a redirect (per WP:INTDABLINK)? 92.4.59.122 (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I just confered with my friends at WP:AFC, and yes I was in error, but this is not really a big problem. It can be left the way it is. Thanks for bringing it up. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 02:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A tag has been placed on Ace Radio (UK) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 22:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an article that was requested at WP:AFC. It was incorrectly placed in the article mainspace. I then moved it to WP:AFC and the article was put on hold per CSD G11. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 23:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

		The Userpage Shield
		Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage! Hamtechperson 00:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I will put this on my userpage. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 02:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, thank you. Hamtechperson 02:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)