User talk:Funandtrvl/Archive 1

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Hello, Funandtrvl, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

  Introduction

 5    The five pillars of Wikipedia

  How to edit a page

  Help

  Tips

  How to write a great article

  Manual of Style

  Fun stuff...

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Kralizec! (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Funandtrvl, you removed a bunch of redlinks (for stimulant compounds that are still awaiting pages) from the stimulants template, I'm not sure if this was an accident but I have put them back where they should be. Meodipt (talk) 10:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• See: User:NicoV/Wikipedia Cleaner/Documentation for WikiCleaner tool to remove red-links.

Funandtrvl (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand, those redlinks on that template are place holders for compounds which do not yet have pages, but will do in the future. So there is no correct page name to link them to, as the page has not yet been created. Nevertheless they should stay on the template for now, to remind people that pages need to be made for those compounds in the future. Good work cleaning the place up though anyway, keep it up! Meodipt (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on 204.81.226.151, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Waterden (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for fixing that link, which I had shamefully missed. Regards Wingspeed (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Please be careful when using editing tools. Your program changed the "attack cargo ship" string at USS McCawley (APA-4) to "amphibious cargo ship", probably automatically because "attack cargo ship" is a redirect. But there was no such thing as an "amphibious cargo ship" in 1943. The type was redesignated from attack cargo ship (AKA) to amphibious cargo ship (LKA) only in the 1960s. Gatoclass (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Big thanks for your disambiguation work earlier today. You may not be aware of it, but you cleaned up more than 13% of the links remaining to be cleaned as part of my personal call sign disambiguation project. Mlaffs (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, I hope that most of them were right, please feel free to correct any errors!!--Funandtrvl (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't remove the Wikiproject tags from category tag pages. The scope of Wikiprojects always includes relevant categories as well as the articles included in them; note that the Wikiproject templates will specify "category" as the class of page, so this is obviously intended. Thanks! Postdlf (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, procedure acknowledged.-Funandtrvl (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

...for this courtesy. I've added my support on the Templates for deletion page. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This edit was labeled "Repairing link to disambiguation page" but it did a lot more than that. For example, it replaced "high blood pressure" with the less-understandable "hypertension" and it redid the number of columns in "References" and it changed the section header for "References". Were all these changes intended? Eubulides (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I resized references per Template:Reflist#Browser support and Wikipedia:Footnotes#Resizing references, so smaller size will be reflected in IE7, which I use primarily. Added two spaces after last section to prevent bunch-ups of navboxes. Wikilinks still need to be piped to point to current page names, not redirect pages.--Funandtrvl (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I see the two spaces, but I am still puzzled by the resizing and redirect issues. Could you please follow up at Talk:Vaccine #Reflist and at Talk:Vaccine #Redirect pages? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Funandtrvl, you just substituted bad style for good style using the Wikipedia_Cleaner bot to WP:Profanity, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Profanity&diff=259122627&oldid=247568609. Bad style is not a problem, using a bot to systematically replace good style with bad style is. Per WP:MOS#Institutions, "The at the start of a title is not normally capitalized". All the major American style guides say the same thing, concerning most proper nouns.

But this is actually bigger than just a style question, it's a question of not "repairing" links that aren't broken, especially not with a bot. I see you asked this question over at User_talk:NicoV/Wikipedia_Cleaner/Documentation in October. The reply didn't come til late November, in case you missed it:

Problems with other users reverting back changes from the WikiCleaner

Recently, after using the WikiCleaner on several pages, I have had other users revert back the changes. Are any of you having the same problem? Any ideas on how to prevent this happening? Thanks for your help! Funandtrvl (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The obvious reason would be in the previous talk section: Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. If you don't like a guideline it should be changed, not overridden, and certainly not overridden automatically by a bot. Art LaPella (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(Watchlisting for a few days.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(1) Concerning redirects-I see the instructions at WP:R2D and will keep that in mind for the future, wouldn't there be exceptions for navigational templates and pages with links to disambiguation pages? (2) Concerning "The" in "The New York Times" in this revision: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Profanity&diff=259122627&oldid=247568609, according to WP:THE#When definite and indefinite articles should be used, my revision was correct and your revision at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Profanity&oldid=261740480, is not correct. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware. WP:THE is a naming convention, and therefore only applies to the name that should be used in the title of the article. All major American styleguides would agree (if they mention it by name) that The New York Times is the correct name of the paper; all do agree to either lowercase or even drop the "the" for the title of any work or institution inside a sentence, depending on context, as in "Have you seen Wagner's Ring of the Nibelungen?" "Yes, I've seen the whole Ring Cycle" (not "The whole Ring Cycle" or "The Ring Cycle", even though that's the name of the work). References on request. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm also aware of the American style guidelines; however, considering what MOS:CAPS says about using proper names or trademarks and the fact that the example on that page uses: "The Guardian Manual of Style", with "The" capitalized, there does not seem to be any kind of consistency to which style should be used here on WP. Thus, it is easy to see why there is a difference of usage, considering the confusing guidelines. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you think the change that you made to the archive header at WT:CHICAGO is an improvement? No one will know which archive to go to without the dates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, added the more detailed {{Archive box collapsible}} --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much!!!--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You get a gold star for taking an interest in the candies article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!! --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Please be careful when removing red links from dab pages, as in this edit [1] where you removed the link from the comic strip. Note the section of MOS:DAB dealing with red links (MOS:DABRL): "A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link." In this case the comic is also linked in the blue-linked article Jackie Ormes. I'll grant that notability--and thus the possibility of an article actually being created--is certainly debatable, but it's not out of the question. If in your opinion, though, notability is insufficient, you should remove the red link from the dab page and the article. Otherwise, though, keep up the good cleanup work. I can't believe I blinked on that Soviets entry on the Candy Girl page. Cheers! --ShelfSkewed Talk 05:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me about removing the link from the article page, also. Will do! --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

In your recent edits at Orca (disambiguation) you removed a number of redirects that were, I believe, correctly on the page because they may one day have their own pages. You may disagree and rv my edits, but I thought the page looks nicer this way. Also, I moved a lot of stuff to see also because of MOS:DABNAME, do you agree with this? PDBailey (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the page for me! --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This was not a test on Help:Reverting, that page is a Meta duplicate page and all instructions were followed per the paragraph at the bottom of that page, as follows: "This page is a copy of the master help page at Meta (for general help information all Wikimedia projects can use), with two Wikipedia-specific templates inserted. To update the main text, edit the master help page for all projects at m:Help:Reverting. For Wikipedia-specific issues, use Template:Ph:Reverting (the extra text at the bottom of this page) or Template:Phh:Reverting for a Wikipedia-specific lead (text appears at the top of this page). You are welcome to replace the full wikitext of this page with that of the master page at Meta at any time. To view this page in other languages see the master page at Meta." Requesting a detailed explanation of the problem, please. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, my apologizes. I apparently didn't look at all of the edits. =( Sorry. On a side note, do use the preview button when possible. Again, my apologies.Smallman12q (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, although I always use the preview button, that help page was sufficiently complicated enough, that I was not able to do all the revisions in just one edit, sorry. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear "Funandtrvl",

If you could read beyond the third-grade level, you would know that my edit for the College article was not vandalism (in fact, I specified my reasons.) The training of "Christian ministers" has never been a factor in deciding whether an institution would be designated a "college" or not (never has, never will.) Thus the bullshit about the "training of Christian ministers" was entirely irrelevant to the article. As well, the sentence "Contrast this with Europe, where only universities could grant degrees" further betrays a lack of reading comprehension of the preceding sentences which states "Dartmouth College has a charter permitting it to award degrees 'as are usually granted in either of the universities, or any other college in our realm of Great Britain.'" Obviously, the King of England was granting Dartmouth (and William & Mary) the privileges of a university (not creating some "exception" to European practices.) So please, before you threaten me with legal action (express or implied), why don't you learn how to read. Just because you are an inbred Christian fundamentalist who believes colleges were originally intended to train "Christian ministers," that doesn't make it so (at least not in the real world.) Now I think I will go back and re-edit the article you ignoramuses have decided to revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.212.45 (talk) 08:55, February 4, 2009 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Old requests for Chicago peer review, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Old requests for Chicago peer review has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Old requests for Chicago peer review, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw that you were doing maintenance work on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Criminal Biography/Serial Killer task force and Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography pages, so I thought I'd ask you about this problem. I've asked many people over the months, the best response I got was something about getting around to it. The problem is that even when we add the listas= to a WP template, the articles are not sorting according to last name. A great many articles don't have this added yet, but it doesn't function even for the ones that do. Is this something that you could address? If not, could you please direct me to someone who could actually fix our templates or whatever is wrong so we can use listas=? Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know the problem exactly. I've enquired at: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#How to add listas sorting to a WPBM banner?, hopefully someone more technically experienced than I am will help us out. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Village pump said they're working on it, apparently they need to fix a bug first. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you SO much! It's well beyond my technical ability and I haven't been able to find anyone to help. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Your justification for this was incorrect; there is no requirement to harmonise spelling of titles on Wikipedia; "organisation" vs. "organization" is an issue of local varieties of English; Wikipedia policy is to leave these at the initial version unless the topic is strongly associated with a particular region. See WP:NC#National varieties of English. Unless there is some other justification, it should be moved back. Thanks, --Rogerb67 (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

See reply at Talk:Destination marketing organization#Comments. --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the WP:ASE project's page! Just one thing: I don't think ASE qualifies as a guideline, it is just a modest fix-up project like others. Cheers Nicolas1981 (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know how to categorize it, is there a guideline about that anywhere? --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Can you argue about the pertinence of the attraction list in that state in the discussion page of "Tourism" article ? I suggest the removal of the list or its modification like I done. Thanks, En-bateau (talk) 11:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

See my response at Talk:Tourism. --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I applaud your taking the time to edit the layout of the article to conform to the guidelines of city articles. I wonder why in doing so you did not improve the article by making the lead more concise. Is this something you are intending? The lead seems to go into details that could be moved to the body of the article.--Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 03:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! I noticed that also about the lead paragraph, but didn't have the time to rewrite it. Any help is always appreciated! --Funandtrvl (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for all your work updating banners and their documentation. But could you be a little more careful before making changes to the configuration of these banners, because some of them have been discussed at length in the past in order to find what the WikiProject actually wants. Your change to Template:WP Banksia for example, made significant changes which altered the behaviour of the banner. To be clear, no one could argue that correctly setting the ASSESSMENT_LINK or substcheck parameters could be controversial. That's routine maintenance to bring banners up to date. However we need to be careful when adding the full quality scale, for example, because we might not know what the project thinks about this. Anyway no big deal, and thanks again for your work. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure why you refactored this talk archive into archive 6. Archives which are too long are harder to navigate on slow browsers or Internet connections. Is there a particular reason for doing so? Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I've adjusted the archive size down to 150k, from the normal 256k used for archive pages. I also use a dial-up connection several times a week and have not had any problems with reading 100-150k. Because archive #6 had only 32k in it, that is why the portion of archive #7 was combined with it. As I have experienced no problems with 100-150k on a dial-up, if someone is still having problems, they must not have a very powerful computer and certainly, they must be experiencing problems accessing any website, these days. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. We had a couple of edit conflicts while both working on that template. I hope that I didn't step on your toes there. I also hope that my explanation and solution makes sense. If not, feel free to discuss it more. We should probably use the {{In use}} template to help avoid future edit conflicts:

<noinclude>{{In use}} (Brief description of work) --~~~~
</noinclude>...

It can get kind of hairy and it's bad for the server when two people try to edit a commonly used template at the same time. Sorry about that. Have a good day! --Willscrlt (→“¡¿Talk?!”) 21:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Templating has kind of become my specialty here, mostly due to lots of trial and error and practice. Sometimes it's terribly frustrating. I used to spend hours trying to track down one missing brace or pound sign or an unescaped pipe symbol in table that was breaking things. Usually that kind of problem I can spot pretty quickly now, but the more complex the template, the worse it is to debug. If you ever need help with templates, feel free to ask me directly. :-) --Willscrlt (→“¡¿Talk?!”) 21:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read my latest comments on the template talk page. I haven't tried the blank problem you mentioned, but I will do so now. Please try not to make any edits for a bit on it. I'm trying to work with you here. I don't want an admin (or anyone else, including you) to think that we are in an edit war. We aren't. We are just trying to accomplish the same goal, but flip-flopping our edits across each other, and that's not helping. Ok? --Willscrlt (→“¡¿Talk?!”) 00:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems fixed. 300px seems really big. Look at the Wikipedia logo at that size.

The Help:Images page recommends only 150px for the largest size. This matches what I'd read before for a recommended maximum size for people using mobile browsers and slow dial-up connections. Think we should set it to 150px instead? Editors can always choose to go larger using the imagesize parameter if they feel they must.

As far as removing bodystyle altogether, I don't think that's a good idea. It's designed for raw CSS code. You can try using that to override the width, and as long as you use "!important" with the width, there's a decent chance it might actually work. I don't think we should eliminate the ability to customize the CSS, nor do I think we should encourage people to try to override default settings. I put just enough info into the template instructions to maybe help people figure out how to do so, but not so much that they are likely to do it willy nilly without understanding the consequences (I hope). :-) Please try testing it out some more. Thanks for the sandbox example. It was helpful in testing. --Willscrlt (→“¡¿Talk?!”) 01:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I'll do that right now, unless I see you added an In Use tag. --Willscrlt (→“¡¿Talk?!”) 01:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: edit conflict - Thanks to your warning on my talk page I was able to catch it before committing my changes, thus no conflict. :-)

I hate it when two similar templates (in this case {{Infobox WikiProject}} and {{Project information}}) offer the same parameters, yet implement them completely differently. Argh! In {{Infobox WikiProject}}, the order of the userboxes is important, because each one tacks on a different prefix to the page (dumb, in my opinion). In {{Project information}}, there are the same three parameters, but they work as I would expect: allowing people to include up to three different userboxes and relying upon the editors to include the full path to the template. So it doubles my work to try to make the two templates compatible (I like compatability!). Going to be testing that now. I hope it's okay to keep using your sandbox. :-) --Willscrlt (→“¡¿Talk?!”) 02:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

no problem, I didn't even realize there is another template for you to fix!! --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Done with my tweaking for now. How do you like it? I don't think it will break any current implementations, though I am going to go through the linked pages and verify that no infoboxes got horribly broken as a result. --Willscrlt (→“¡¿Talk?!”) 03:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

it looks good, thanks for your work and expertise! --Funandtrvl (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the lack of documentation for 'notice-extended'. I fixed that and did some more tweaking. I looked through about 100 different WikiProjects that used that template, and I discovered that people weren't very consistent in how they filled in parameters, so I tried to make the template smarter. It seems to cover pretty much every variation that editors seem to throw at it now. :-) It's a pain to support a) new features without breaking hundreds of older implementations, b) people who don't follow directions and do it their own way, and c) decisions reached by consensus in the past that don't seem to follow current methodologies (again without breaking them when you switch to the new defaults). It's kind of like a puzzle--a real challenge. But it was fun, too. Thanks for inspiring me! If you have anything else to suggest or fix, let me know. Have a good weekend. --Willscrlt (→“¡¿Talk?!”) 08:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the cleanup on Template:Infobox WikiProject/doc. I'd swear that some of those mistakes were not in there when I finished editing, but I guess I was more tired than I thought. Good teamwork. :-) --Willscrlt (→“¡¿Talk?!”) 21:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The Project information is designed as a part of a whole set of boxes that are designed to work together. It is used on the side panel of the various food and drink projects, the law project and some others. The {{Infobox WikiProject}} is an unrelated stand alone. --Jeremy (blah blah) 18:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand this edition. Could you kindly explain me? Thanks. --Againme (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It's just to populate the 'Automatically assessed' category from the WikiProject, using a bot. I think the article needs to be added to and improved in order not to be considered a stub article. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ohh... I thought that was about the tag being included by a bot or by a person... --Againme (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the userbox work relating to Portals. :) Cirt (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, just trying to cleanup, when I found the 2nd userbox out there, not categorized to the project! --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note that MiszaBot's code needs to be on separate lines to properly function. Make sure not to combine it onto a single line such as [2]. cheers, –xeno ^talk 22:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, I also fixed the counter error, hopefully, it'll work now. --Funandtrvl (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking for opinions about whether certain articles should be in Category:Dichotomies. You have contributed on Category talk:Dichotomies, so perhaps you would like to view the current discussion and add your thoughts. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Right - I'm out of town at the moment, but I'll work on it soon as I'm home. Promise. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 16:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. You are changing stuff and messing up the structure of the Food and Drink Category system that I have been fixing for the past month. --Jeremy (blah blah) 05:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be so blunt, I wasn't trying to be rude, just get your attention. Thank you for the offer of help.

With the category system for food and drink I am arranging the categories so that we are not dealing with over-categorization. If you see any redlinks in the category system, that just means I have not gotten to that yet. We have made some moves over the past year, converting dead Projects to Taskforces, but we missed the categories and many legacy categories are left over such as the ones you were moving things into. (eg Category:WikiProject Cheeses which should have been replaced with Category:Cheeses Taskforce)

Also, I have come across several categorization notes that are good to know: There are several system symbols that Wikipedia used to denote projects (ω), templates (τ), stubs (μ) and Wiki-Reader (ρ), which you changed or just appended on to the entries. Also, the wikimedia software does not recognize anything after the first character in the name used, in other words [[Category:Foo|Example]] is treated the same way as [[Category:Foo|E]].

Again I apologize for the abruptness of my first note, I hope you don't hold it against me.--Jeremy (blah blah) 06:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The F&D Project is very complicated in its structure, here it is: WP:Food (parent)

→ WP:Cheeses (TF)

→ WP:Herbs (TF)

→ WP:Foodservice (TF)

→ WP:Wine (Child WP)

→ WP:Beer (Child WP)

→ WP:Pubs (Beer TF)

→ WP:Mixed Drinks (Child)

→ WP:Bartending (Mix drinks Child WP)

→ WP:Ice Cream (Child WP, possibly dead)

I have checked the other projects' categories and they all seem to be in proper order. My major project right now is recategorizing all of the Food and Drink templates which is turning into a major job. The Drink side is done, but the Food side is a complete mess. There are so many templates that have yet to be classified it is taking some time to get them all together. In the past week I have found almost 300 user templates that have never been classified and still need to be tagged. 8-P --Jeremy (blah blah) 06:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

		Mmm - Milk!
		You can't have cookies without milk!

Hey, I just want you to know that with almost all of the portals, projects and taskforces that the categories they sit in are already a subset of the main WikiProject Food and Drink category. Basically it is a pyramid of categories with the Food and Drink cat at the Apex. You don't need to add the Food and Drink cat to those child pages because their individual cat is already part of the parent cat. --Jeremy (blah blah) 19:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I was just in the process of pinging them when I got your message. To be fair, I think they've got a point - but the article should be created first. It's a major page, and should be as straightforward as possible. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The project is fairly recent, less than six months old. It just hasn't been fully integrated yet. --Jeremy (blah blah) 03:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to drop by and say thanks for the work you're doing to WP:SPIRITS -- Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 02:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The parent cat of Category:Drink templates is a sub cat of Category:Food and drink templates which is in included in Category:Society and social science templates. How ever If you wish to cross reference it with Category:Society and social science infobox templates do so. I did not see the whole name you had put when I reverted. --Jeremy (blah blah) 05:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes. However, the task forces do not have their own assessments - they use the parent projects assessments. --Jeremy (blah blah) 18:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Mayhaps it is a left over from when they were independent projects. The pages may still be left over from when they had their own assessments. --Jeremy (blah blah) 20:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It happened when I edited the documentation page to reflect the changes to the template and display all of the various options. I have tried to fix it but have not been able to get it to display right. Maybe taking the small options out may work, but that sort of defeats the purpose of the page. Also on AbQ, I edited the documentation to clarify the behavioral issues you are asking about. You will have to edit the specific style sheet that defines the toc style for that to work. --Jeremy (blah blah) 16:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wine project never signed off the usage of the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} template on articles. Until they say yes. It has to stay under the do not use area. --Jeremy (blah blah) 02:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, on drink related pages, if you hit them with the project tag, please use {{WikiProject Food and drink|drink=yes}} to assign it drink oriented information such as the Drink Portal. --Jeremy (blah blah) 07:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have gone through the template and added all missing instances of the missing various additional tags and added them in. There is still allot more to do and I will be working on it tomorrow. --Jeremy (blah blah) 19:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

A week ago I invited you to consider a disagreement regarding whether certain articles should be in Category:Dichotomies, and you kindly visited the talk page. I can see now that the discussion lacked focus and you would have needed an hour to work out what it was all about. It would be great if you would visit Category talk:Dichotomies#Examples where I have listed 24 articles in the Dichotomies category, and comment on some of them: yes certain articles should be in the category, or no certain articles should not be in the category. I would recommend just listing some article numbers and saying what you think about them, but of course if you want to make comments on each individual article that would be good too. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 07:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, may I ask one thing first of all excuse my English, I am an Italian citizen, I live in the province of Bari doing research on some of my relatives emigrated to the United States of America they lived in Addison, but after contacting the Joint communiqué ce years I have moved elsewhere. I want to know if the county of Du Page County has records of birth marriage and death of the village of Addison, because 'I would like to know the various dates concerning my relatives. I am Italian could send me the certificates including payment. Hello, answer. Greetings from Italy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsiglia 1807 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for having responded I would ask for the certificates as I can get the money to Du Page County Clerk. In your opinion can be sent out even if I am not an American citizen. Answer and sorry for disturbing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsiglia 1807 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I created one at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine/Assessment, I just used the Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Assessment page as a template. --Jeremy (blah blah) 01:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the category issue in the template, just was a typo from when I created it oh so long ago... --Jeremy (blah blah) 02:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

According to Happy-melon the template parser functions cannot be modified to allow variables such as picture length etc. The solution? {{25 Numbered subpages}} & {{75 Numbered subpages}}. Kludgy, but workable. --Jeremy (blah blah) 07:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The focus=bar is a leftover from the pre-{{WPBannerMeta}} template, those should all be changed to bar=yes. That would be a good bot task. --Jeremy (blah blah) 08:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Those are ghosts in the machine, they do not exist - I checked. I went through and removed all instances of the template before I put the {{speedy}} on it. For some reason any page that had the template transcluded is still registering as linking to the page.

Look for yourself, do a search on the pages and see. --Jeremy (blah blah) 20:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I figured out how to create a pass through for the various fields. You will need to ad the following switches to accommodate the task forces:

 |ATTENTION_CAT    = {{#switch:yes
                       |{{{bar|}}}  = Bartending articles needing attention
                       |Mixed drinks articles needing attention}}

 |INFOBOX_CAT      = {{#switch:yes
                       |{{{bar|}}}  = Bartending articles needing infobox
                       |Mixed drinks articles needing infobox}}

 |COMMENTS_CAT     = {{#switch:yes
                       |{{{bar|}}}  = Bartending articles with comments
                       |Mixed drinks articles with comments}}

 |NOTE_1_CAT       = {{#switch:yes
                       |{{{bar|}}}  = Wikipedia requested photographs of bartending
                                      -or- Bartending articles needing photos
                       |Wikipedia requested photographs of mixed drinks
                        -or- Mixed drinks needing photos (depends on cat)

As you can see I used the Mixed Drinks Project as an example, but this can be done on any WPBannerMeta template. --Jeremy (blah blah) 06:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the stub for the bartending article. It was deleted some time ago. I have asked the deleting admin to restore it.--Jeremy (blah blah) 08:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello: The reason the delete was declined earlier was that the redirect was hanging around for a long time. If it is there for a long time it is likely to end up in article histories (in this case project page or template histories). When you attempt a non controversial speedy delete, you will need to provide a justification as to why it is non controversial, because it is not always obvious, and the administrator has to check for edit warring and vandalism. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed Drinks/Archive2006 given the chomp too. Let me know if you want it back. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Funandtrvl! I am very touched by the disappearance of flight 447 but I cannot help so much. I am very busy, and the work seems difficult. I apologize and wish good luck. Regards; Felipe ^{( talk )} 16:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for such prompt and careful action. Restores my faith in the project. 193.188.33.23 (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Was a six month window for comments on the ITCZ talk page not enough? I'm surprised it wasn't. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not the point, it's a controversial move and should have been handled as much. Besides, it needs its own article anyways, just because it needs to be updated or expanded to explain the differences between it and MT, doesn't mean it should be redirected. After all, NOAA has a whole page on it, why shouldn't W? --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

After exploring the situation more, I think they do need to remain separate. If there had only been feedback with the ITCZ talk page, the redirect could have been avoided. The SPCZ article is already cross referenced with both ITCZ and monsoon trough (looks like I did so 2 1/2 years ago when I expanded out the SPCZ article initially). I've added a wikilink for monsoon trough into the lead of the ITCZ article, and added a section concerning the different names for certain ITCZ portions into the ITCZ article. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI a lot of the units in miles (abbrev mi) are actually nautical miles, which is a significantly different unit and is flagged as "nmi" to the convert template. This diff might put a bit of context around which are actually in nautical miles. Thanks/wangi (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, can you fix that for me? I was intending to ck the measurements with the sources, but hadn't gotten to it yet. I see someone caught it already! --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to, but lacking enough time just now to do it right. I noticed the issue earlier today with that IP's edit and actually started them but a load of real life got in the way. Could you flag up the issue on the article talk page so hopefully somebody could pick it up? Thanks/wangi (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Funandtrvl, I saw some of your edits in the gardening portal, and thought you might be interested in contributing to a gardening wiki project (outside of wikipedia). It uses the same mediawiki script, but the goal is to have every single garden plant in the world, with articles focusing solely on the gardeners perspective and how to grow it. In other words, description, zones, sun/water requirements, cultivation, propagation, cultivars, pests/diseases, anything else relevant, and of course photos. A huge undertaking that is already pretty substantial in size, but which needs tons of help with additional information, categorization, text cleanup, etc. Wikipedia of course is not a how-to, so you can't actually go into detail on how to grow the plant, but http://www.plants.am is there exactly for that. Anyway, if you have any questions, let me know, but I really hope I'll see you over there too! --RaffiKojian (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting me know about this other site! --Funandtrvl (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you be interested in it? MBisanz ^talk 23:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for thinking of me, I really appreciate it; however, at this time, I may not have the personal time that is truly required to devote to the Wikipedia project, as one would expect an adminstrator to do. Secondly, I haven't had a chance to thoroughly review the complete set of WP policies and guidelines or previous cases of RfA's that were successful and not. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Okey, I understand. Thanks for all your work and if your mind ever changes, ping me. MBisanz ^talk 17:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, did you know that {{cat class}} automatically adds the categories, so your edit here was unnecessary?

PS, regarding the above, I would likely support you in the future as well but I don't think you've been actively editing for a full year yet, and you've probably got more things to learn. So I think you made the right decision to decline at this time :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right, I got it completely the wrong way round. I feel a bit stupid now. Anyway, keep up the good work; it's good to have you around. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

wow great work here. Thanks so much StarM 02:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

:) You made me feel less guilty about not having done what I intended since I watchlisted it forever and a day ago. Did indeed have a good 4th - escaped the City for a bit, which is always wonderful. You? StarM 03:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem!! You know I'm not a lover of the 4th holiday, my neighbors were setting off firecrackers (really big ones that could qualify for the Capitol 4th) that kept me up until 3am, and they're still blowing them up today too! So, I'm still catching up on my sleep, and I think it's safe to venture outside now w/o risk of a firecracker whizzing by!! :) --Funandtrvl (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh yuck! I was in Rochester, New York and timing worked out as I saw the weekly High Falls fireworks, followed by those set off by the city and ultimately the ones at the Rochester Red Wings game, which I attended. I imagine if I'd been home, NYC, I'd have had some od the same fireworks issues you mention. Hope you catch up on sleep soon! StarM 12:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

C3 was not the correct tag simply because the template in the category was a legitimate one and the category was legitimately empty. I looked into a bit more and realised there is no chance of the category ever being re-populated so I deleted it under housekeeping. Regards, Woody (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

{{db-empty}} or {{db-housekeeping}} with a quick statement saying that the cat is a remnant of category change and is surplus to requirements. Regards, Woody (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. I've got to go offline for about an hour soon, so if you want to make a start in that time I'll join in as soon as I Get Back. Dendodge _T\^C 18:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It would probably be better if we used some kind of standard formatting template. I'll see what I can find and knock something up in the sandbox. Dendodge _T\^C 17:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've started completely reworking it at User:Dendodge/Sandbox/Beatles portal/2. Just to let you know. Dendodge _T\^C 18:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Better now? Dendodge _T\^C 19:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's honeydew. I suppose green would fit - I just chose it because it's my favourite colour =P. Dendodge _T\^C 19:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've discussed this with you before, but I see you've combined the talk archives of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States into one 100K page. If you look at that page in edit mode, MediaWiki gives a warning about its size; I've already intimated that pages of this size cause severe performance issues with at least two machines I regularly edit on. may I ask why you feel it is essential that talk archives are merged into huge monoliths? Archive searching is now a mature technology on WP which makes searching across various pages at once far easier, while keeping pages at a sensible length allows for them to be browsed on less performant systems. I must kindly ask that you stop doing this unless you've a genuinely compelling reason, as it personally inconveniences me to a quite large degree. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted a recent edit you made to this template. I've brought up a discussion about it at this page. ThemFromSpace 02:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

TBH, that was something I was demonstrating for a RL friend who was interested in creating a WikiProject of that name. After the initial tinker to show them how to do it, they went home. I left the project alone after that and haven't paid it any attention - is it active? Dendodge _T\^C 08:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, but we may make it a TF of WP:WP Travel and Tourism. --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, great work so far on doing all the moving and reorganization. Looks great. Hopefully once all the moves are complete the new project can turn around and get active again. If you need any help with anything, let me know. Andyo2000 (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm still working on changing the related WPs to TFs. --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:R2D; thank you. --NE2 04:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I reverted this edit because it violated this provision of MOSDAB. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixing the disambiguation page of Latin Music is not vandalism. Stop making false accusations and threats in my talk page please.

24.216.77.190 (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in, but I think you both have a point. I think Latin music should perhaps be a disambiguation page (it isn't one now, it's a redirect). "Latin" can refer to either the specific language or to any of various groups of people (see Latins). --Auntof6 (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Since it wasn't a disambig page, and if you check "What links here", in its current form it makes more sense to redirect to Latin American music than Music of ancient Rome. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed your edit to Internet Relay Chat [3] with WikiCleaner changed redirects into piped links. This is usually not desired (except in the case of navigation templates), see the WP:R2D subsction of Wikipedia:Redirect. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i note u are performing a series of disambiguation cleanup edits, which overall look good. This happens to have included revising Clarksville Historic District, a dab page that has several NRHP-related items, on my watchlist.

It looks like u have some tool that checks, or u are checking manually, whether a link is redirected to a differently named article. For 1500 or more NRHP-related disambiguation pages, there are links of format [[List of RHPs in ___|listed on the NRHP in ___]], where "List of RHPs in __" is a redirect to "National Register of Historic Places listings in ___". In my view, it is NOT an improvement to replace that link with just National Register of Historic Places listings in __. The existing system is consistent with guidance obtained in this extended past discussion at WikiProject Disambiguation. Further if some such change was going to be performed, I would want to do it by use of a bot request, and do it all systematically.

So, could I ask that you not change the NRHP items that way? And/or to discuss and sort out what makes sense, before changing more. Thanks! doncram (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You replied at my Talk: "Thanks for pointing out the discussion about the naming problems for the NRHP lists. I obviously wasn't aware of it, but I did wonder why all of the pages for the NRHPs had been renamed and were showing up as double-redirects with the Wikipedia cleaner. Were the lists renamed because of the policy of not using acronyms? Is there any possibility that the list names would be changed back? If not, then shouldn't the links be piped to the current names of the NRHP lists? Any clarification would be appreciated! --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)"

Actually you seem to be driving at something different than what i expected. The discussion I linked to was not meant to be about the NRHP list renamings, which did happen though. If your focus is on double redirects, then we could address that pretty easily. Yes, all the NRHP list-articles were renamed from format "List of Registered Historic Places in ___" to format "National Register of Historic Places listings in ___". List of Registered Historic Places does not appear anywhere. On the other hand, i have continued to use extensively the shortcuts of format "List of RHPs in __", which each should redirect to "National Register of Historic Places listings in __". I wouldn't really know about cases where usage of "List of RHPs in __" involves a double redirect (like if in fact it redirects to "List of Registered Historic Places in __" which redirects to "National Register of Historic Places listings in __"). If there are cases like that, then I would indeed support revising the "List of RHPs in __" entries to point directly to the final target. Note, my using "List of RHPs in " has been a useful shortcut in building the NRHP dab system. doncram (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

But, i checked the link List of RHPs in TN which was what u changed in Clarksville Historic District article. That was just a redirect to the final target "National Register of Historic Places listings in Tennessee", and is not a double redirect. So, what is triggering your Wikipedia cleaner to flag these? doncram (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What I meant to say and what I should have done is exactly what you did. Instead of not piping the link, I should just have piped the link to the current page name, instead of just replacing it with the current page name, since it makes much more sense in the wording of the phrase & definition. My apologies for not doing that! BTW, the link for the cleaner is: WP:CLEANER. It's a good tool, but sometimes the humans using it may not make the "right call" the first time, but things can be repaired! --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I don't mind ur replacing "List of RHPs in __" with "National Register of Historic Places listings in __" anywhere. However, I still don't see what is the problem with using the short version. If i understood how it is a problem, I would perhaps make a bot request to implement the change in 1500+ articles (maybe 15,000 usages of "List of RHPs in "). Also, i just installed the wikipedia cleaner and find it hard to use, hard to decipher what it is highlighting in red, when i look at some other articles. Anyhow, if u find other problems in NRHP entries, please let me know as I am currently the main developer and maintainer of NRHP-related disambiguation. Thanks. doncram (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi-It's not a critical problem, but when cleaning disambig pages w/links (WP:DPL), you might as well clean up the whole page. You'll get used to the WikiCleaner, also a few other engines, like AWB are listed at the disambig pg/links, if you want to try out several. If you can't figure out which page it should actually direct to (like trying to disambiguate all the Kings of England), just right-click and put "mark as needing help", then it'll go into a maint. cat., and maybe someone else can update it then. Sometimes, the right link isn't even on the disambig pages, so you have to edit the disambig page to include the additional page that it should direct to. Happy editing! --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:R2D. --NE2 20:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for being a member of WP:CHICAGO. If you continue to be actively associated with WP:CHICAGO, please change the date at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members to August 2009, otherwise mark yourself inactive or semi-active. Thank you. Make sure anyone you think is active in the project has signed up on the project page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

For the rest of this month we are looking for more candidates to be promoted to Category:Top-importance Chicago articles. We are hoping to bring the list of category members to a total of 50. Either you have participated in past votes and discussions or you have recently signed up to be a part of WP:CHICAGO. In either case, please come visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chicago/Assessment where we are determining who to add to the September 1st ballot. Some candidate debates have lingered, but there are many new ones from the project's top 50 according to the Wikipedia:Release Version 0.7. Help us determine which pages to add to the ballot.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Funadtrv, the correction I made was exactly that, a correction. Chicago is "The Second City" because the fire burned down the original city, save the water tower, and few other edifices not made from wood. It is not because they are "second" to New York, etc. That is a common misconception like the windy city referring to the climate. Anyone from Chicago knows this, you should change the page back, as my version was correct, and it looks silly because it is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.17.98 (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have replied on my talk page. Also, if you have any friends/editors that may be interested in helping, please forward that e-mail along! Thanks again for all your work on wikipedia! ---kilbad (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have put together a page outlining the Bolognia project at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Dermatology_task_force/Missing_articles#Bolognia_push_2009.21. How does that look? ---kilbad (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel the articles for several SSRI's suffer from a negative POV which discourages their use, despite wide acceptance in the medical field and by the FDA. Can you help correct these issues? Thanks. Neurofish (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Neurofish

Feel free to come vote at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago/Assessment#Current_Top-importance_Candidates for our next Category:Top-importance Chicago articles. Voting continues until September 10 and nominations/discussions are ongoing for future ballot candidates at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chicago/Assessment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Funandtrvl- What specific problems did you have with Iowa archaeology? There is a sloppy autogenerated citation (done by someone else) that I am trying to eradicate, but other than that, what do you feel is wrong with the article that it warrants a Wikify tag? Bill Whittaker (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting that. I guess the IP took umbrage at my warning for vandalism. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You should really be more willing to extend good faith to others and not be so rash about making vandalism accusations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.243.106 (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The warning was uw-error2, not uw-vandalism2, and I have since changed it to uw-controversial2. --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for "adopting" Lexington High School (Lexington, South Carolina) and doing a thorough cleanup. It's appreciated, I don't know how I ended up with cross-continent schools anyhow :-) tedder (talk) 03:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

when did you attend ND? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavtron (talk • contribs) 20:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

ND Class of 1980 (BA); Loyola 1982 (MBA). --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I note this edit to Template:Culture of Oceania which changed Dance of Kiribati to Dance in Kiribati. Evidently User:Neelix moved the page, so you followed up by updating the Culture of Oceania template.

Unfortunately, Template:Oceania topic relies on the ' "Topic" of "X" ' naming topology to function. In other words, for that template to work on a page, the page must not be named, for example, "Dance in Kiribati," but instead "Dance of Kiribati". It does not satisfy the template to employ it thus: [[Template:Oceania topic|Dance in]]. Take a look, everywhere the template has been deployed (on the "Dance in" pages), there are almost all red links.

I am cross-posting this to User talk:Neelix to point this out to him as well. If editors are intent on propagating this naming topology change throughout Oceania-related articles, some homework needs to be addressed first. Thank you!  –Newportm (talk • contribs) 23:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Funandtrvl, I hope you don't mind, but I've taken the liberty of removing a warning you put on User talk:XTXavierTorres a week ago for blanking a page. We allow editors to blank articles that they have written as a sign that they want them deleted. - If you see something similar again as long as the page blanker is the author of the article then tagging the blank article with {{db-author}} will get it deleted. Cheers and happy editing! ϢereSpielChequers 21:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yea, that was ambiguous. It was the Ice House in Vegas, which is actually the Ice House Lounge.[4], [5], [6] Vegaswikian (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my mistakes. Hope you find time to answer my questions. Pknkly (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Pknkly (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem! --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. Very beneficial. Pknkly (talk) 07:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome and if you need any help, please let us know! --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh my heavens! Your expertise is very much needed! I was just working on getting your information from yesterday into the article. Please go to the talk page and we can pick up the discussion there. I included a section on collaborative guidelines for your review, critical comments, and suggestions. In addition, I moved your suggestions within sections for further discussion. Thank you again. Pknkly (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, during my edits, I located the source of Euromonitor's most visited cities for 2006 to Madrid because on the "year/notes" it said was based on 2006 external study estimation; however you have since updated and changed the source and year for Madrid. But the reminder of the external study estimation data on the chart used Euromonitor's most visited cities for 2007's information, thus, they shouldn't be referencing the 2006 version, because none of the international visitors information matches with the 2006 version.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I notice that you recently made a change to continuity. The description of the change was "WikiCleaner 0.96 - Repairing link to disambiguation page - You can help!", but in fact it changed links to redirect pages, not disambig pages. I just wanted to point out that, unlike links to disambiguation pages, links to redirects should not be "fixed" unless there is some other reason; see WP:Redirect#NOTBROKEN. For example, this is my interpretation of the advice from that page applied to your changes:

• [[electrical circuit]] to [[electrical network|electrical circuit]]
  • As pointed out on that guideline page, changes like this should almost never be made. Indeed if a link like this is found, making the reverse change could be considered a "fix".
• [[Graph continuity]] to [[Graph continuous function]]
  • This type of change should only be made if the new title is genuinely preferable in context (this is like the "Franklin Roosevelt" example on that guidline page). Since the title of the page you were editing is "continuity", I think "Graph continuity" is a better title in this context.
• [[Lévy continuity theorem]] to [[Lévy's continuity theorem]]
• [[Continuity of operations]] to [[Continuity of Operations Plan]]
  • On the other hand these seem to be reasonable changes, because neither title seems preferable in this context, so I would have thought the most common title would be best (which hopefully matches the main article title). However the improvement is smaller than the cost to the other two links.

I went to the trouble of pointing it out on your user page since I noticed you used a bot to make the change so I thought it best to point this out before you did it too often elsewhere. Do you know if others using that bot are likely to do something similar? If so we should update the bot's documentation prominently warn against it.

By the way, even if your change for graph continuity had been correct, I don't think you should have made the change without being prepared to update the surrounding text (which no longer made grammatical sense with the new link). I notice you're working on some kind of wikiproject where pages are removed from a list as they are "finished". I haven't looked at any of your other changes, so maybe this is a freak exception, but I would suggest that if you often make (correct) changes to links but leave the text in a state that it doesn't make sense, then you have done more harm than good, especially if the page is then removed from the list. If that's the case then I'm not suggesting that you stop your good work, but perhaps do fewer changes more carefully. Quietbritishjim (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you please review and pick up the discussion about the categorization scheme section? I also created the subpage for content categories - please see my latest comment under the readability section. Thanks. Pknkly (talk) 04:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Pknkly (talk) 04:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have an opinion about adding all categories to CHIBOTCATS, please see this section. Pknkly (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Pknkly (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop making edits like this one where you turn links on disambiguation pages from redirects to piped links. I do not know why you always use the edit summary "Repairing link to disambiguation page" because that is explicitly not what you are doing. But links for entries on disambiguation pages are not supposed to be piped, per the Manual of Style. You are not helping when you do this. Propaniac (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "the purpose was to show the actual link, not the redirect page." The point of piping is that you're not showing the actual link. As the guideline you linked to, WP:PIPING, says, "Subject to certain exceptions as listed below, piping or redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages. This is to make it clear to the reader which article is being suggested, so that the reader remains in control of the choice of article." None of the exceptions for when piping should/may be used are applicable to this case.

If you believe that the link should be changed to the redirect's target article, instead of to the redirect, the solution is not to pipe the link so that it displays the redirect while linking to the redirect target. The solution is to change both the link, and the displayed text, accordingly (as I've done with the Stone (Chinese mass) listing). However, in this case, that would not be appropriate because the titles of the first two redirect targets in question are not topics likely to be referred to as "Stone" (which is a problem with those two entries/redirects, that I'm going to look at and try to resolve now).

Also, since you didn't mention it in your response, I will ask again that you stop using the same misleading edit summary for this type of edit. Propaniac (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you're talking about (what you meant to say was what I said, but what I said was that you're doing the entirely wrong thing, so you meant to say that you were doing the entirely wrong thing?) but whatever. All I was "accusing" you of was not understanding how a dab page works and that it's formatted differently from a disambiguation page.

So you were planning to go back to the page at some indeterminate future point to correct the places where you knew you had messed it up while using your WikiCleaner tool? Maybe that's true, maybe it's not, but I think it should be pretty obvious why I don't have a great deal of faith that it was going to happen.

I've never used this tool and I have no idea how it works. But the edit summary is clearly, objectively misleading, whether or not it's intentional. It says that one kind of edit is being made, when a different kind of edit is taking place. Since you said that you're unable to change it, I have opened a discussion at User talk:NicoV/Wikipedia Cleaner/Documentation#Inaccurate edit summary to ask if a change can be made to the tool. Propaniac (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I had only meant to revert one edit since my previous, not all of them. Sorry about that. Lambertman (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent edits!! - You placed one brick in the sum of all human knowledge, and that deserves recognition. 189.217.171.135 (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to WikiProject Cannabis! Feel free to stop by and help any time. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Are townships in Illinois really municipalities? My impression was that they were (like townships in most other states) just administrative subdivisions of counties. postdlf (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your recent changes on Orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing, I am not happy with the result of the WikiCleaner. First, I am not sure if it is such a good idea to adapt the capitalization of link words to those of the subject, as the initial-letter capitalization is intended to point out acronyms (e.g., Personal Area Network = PAN), wikipedia articles are not consequent in using all- or only first-word initial-letter capitalization, and last but not least wikipedia does not allow you to choose lower capitalization for the initial letter of the subject. Second, the article I am referring to was obviously written by somebody preferring English spelling, so the correction of e.g. analogue to analog was not appropriate. Please provide feedback on this. Thanks, Nageh (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for going through the article. I have resolved the remaining disambiguations (quadrature-mixed -> Quadrature phase, threshold -> threshold (not a technical term in the context)). Cheers, Nageh (talk) 13:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That is weird, it works on the documentation for the template and on the cheeses taskforce categories. The funny part is that I did not touch that section, only the link for the project/taskforces. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason you don't see it is because it is a link to that page, thus the link appears black. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't do anything to it because there was nothing wrong with it, see above.

You've been warned about this before. Stop bypassing redirects or you will be blocked. --NE2 14:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's quite a threat. If there is a disagreement, please offer specific examples to discuss reasonably. Thank you. --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You know exactly what sort of edit I'm talking about. --NE2 17:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If you don't understand what "WikiCleaner" does, you shouldn't be using it. --NE2 17:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I was refering to, and by the way doesn't "popups" do the same thing as WikiCleaner? --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you're getting at, but stop bypassing redirects or I'm telling Mommy. --NE2 17:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that's funny. Sorry I don't agree with some of your editing changes, but what I'm trying to say is that I'm offended at your "blanket" directive to stop bypassing all redirects and your "threat" of blocking. Obviously, I don't agree with your opinions, that is why I am suggesting that if you don't like a specific edit, to please bring it to my attention, so we can discuss it reasonably. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've given you such an edit above. If you've read WP:R2D and don't understand why that edit was bad, you shouldn't be using "WikiCleaner". --NE2 17:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Needless to say, I've read R2D and your edit above, and I find your comment(s) very insulting and in a nasty "attack" vein. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

So will you stop using "WikiCleaner" to bypass redirects? --NE2 17:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Your edit summary is erroneous, since you aren't fixing links to disambiguation pages, you are bypassing redirects contrary to WP:R2D. You may want to review this thread about the same. –xeno^talk 17:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect, I did indeed fix a link to a disambiguation page in that edit. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I told Mommy: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Funandtrvl using "WikiCleaner" to bypass redirects --NE2 18:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

		The Categorisation Barnstar
		I couldn't help noticing your recent categorizing spree on DuPage County-related articles, so I now award you the Categorization Barnstar. Keep up the good work! Benny the mascot (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much and Merry Christmas! --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you changed the pictures on the Tourism page to partially match the lists however, in doing so, you also eliminated some of the diversity of the images (which already was not much). Since the page is an all-encompasing page of "Tourism", I think it is better to have at least a couple interesting sites from each continent/region of the world. I had added two African images and the Samarkand image to the page in order to diversify it, but your edits had eliminated them from the sidebar. You did place them in the bottom "Gallery", but it still doesn't seem like too much to allow 2 African destinations in that large line of images. Otherwise, the "Tourism" page becomes a European attraction showcase with a smattering of Asia. It seems rather boring and makes the page appear Eurocentric, when the article is in fact not about Europe.

I see the reasoning behind trying to use destinations from the lists, but since the article is about tourism worldwide, I think it's nice to let the pictures also show this. If you disagree or think you have a better way of showcasing diversity, feel free to message me. Puchiwonga (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

That may not be a bad idea. The site does have many articles like Tourism in Germany, Tourism in Japan, etc. Having a link that directs people to these could be useful. Puchiwonga (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I see so few other eds ever considering to even tag a category talk page - pleased to meet you - I noticed that the South east asia cats that you removed the NA part of the SEA cats - does that mean you know of some good bots to help the task - or are simply tidying up to make sure all cat talk pages have the default? I am currently tagging the death project with a default tag - would be interested to hear your line on the issue. (some projects insist for the purpose of their bots to have what you have removed) - cheers SatuSuro 23:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Just what I thought - I think the project that I am thinking of has an idiosyncratic bot set up - so that would explain it - hey there are so few cat taggers - well done - and keep up the good work! Have a safe new year - and thanks for your response - and hey arent there so many cat pages untagged out there!!!! SatuSuro 23:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Cripes - what a slip - Oh hell - sorry I just noticed I re-inserted SEA at srijivaya without talking first - I did not mean to have a diff with you over that - but one of the probs we have in the sea project at times is the overlap issue between various states - srivijaya's supposed/alleged territory goes well beyond the boundaries of current Indonesia - into parts of other current nations - hope you dont mind my reinserstion without talking first - oops - that was plain odd as I had done the edit first and then saw in the hist that you had removed it. I hope you understand :( SatuSuro 23:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem, my intentions were to clean out SE Asia and re-tag articles w/ their specific countries, but when there is overlap and I didn't realize it, thanks for informing me! --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Also thanks for identifying http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Southeast_Asian_mountains - I am in a quandary about that one - the Indonesian project gets some amazingly odd lists - but that is one I will have to ponder - prod, expand or forget :( SatuSuro 00:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I've actually seen worse, if you can believe it! --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I bet we could write a good article for signpost about the oddities we have seen ;) - SatuSuro 00:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Also I cannot get over how many milhist tags I have had to add - interesting they havent got a bot or something together at some stage SatuSuro 00:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hiya Funandtrvl!

I was wondering if you could explain why you are adding this category, and removing the other category. From where I am sitting this does not appear to make sense. The IHSA is not a conference or league, and only has relations with them in one sport they they oversee (football). On the other hand, the IHSA in many ways, is the central organization to high school sports in the state of Illinois. Am I missing something here? Could you set me straight? Happy new year! LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I created a category for it. --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from alk:List of universities in Zimbabwe/version 2. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Babakathy (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, and it was not my intention to "vandalize" the page. I was confused about the talk page because it is assessed as a stub, and actually it is a redirect page, so I thought it was a leftover (i.e. not needing a tag) WikiProject tagged page, since many projects don't tag their redirect pages. What is story behind the page being assessed as a stub when it's a redirect? --Funandtrvl (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and for pointing out the error on the assessment, which I have fixed. Sorry for mistaking you for what you're not!!! Babakathy (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance & help. I'll take care of rest of the pages. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 08:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Funandtrvl;

I noticed that you set up automatic archiving at Talk:Dinosaur. Thank you very much! J. Spencer (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to configure HotCat to keep the location of the categories you are replacing in the same place in the list of cats instead of putting them at the end of the category list and leaving a "hole" as in this edit [7] ? Tewapack (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that I know of, best to contact the script author, maybe they can work it in. --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Basically, if you have something to say to an established editor, do so. But if you do, please take a look at WP:DTTR. That's bad form and not something that we do on here. For the record, that template does not apply. No maintenance templates (which is what that refers to) nor content that was meaningful was deleted. Sorry your citation got caught up in reverting a mess, but that happens. There is no valid reason to plaster a warning template on my talk page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I was not trying to be rude, but I was not happy when my updates to the "Further reading" section got deleted, and that you did not use the "edit summary" to explain your actions, which for an experienced or new editor, should be used. --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Yes, you did do many careful edits, and that mostly escaped my notice, sorry. The template issue is a tricky one because it is hard to see things in different formats. I had tried to keep the image at the top because it telegraphed the main message, but if it throws the format off, it should move .... so the template should be on top as you had it. Thanks for your help. History2007 (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you removed the category "manufacturing companies of the United States" on the article for delta faucet without explanation; as Delta Faucet manufactures faucets in the US and seems comparable with other companies in that category, I'd like to restore that categorization. Any comments before I do? ejly (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Several weeks ago, you expressed support for removing visa-free articles from passport pages. This discussion has been continuing from that point on, on Talk:Passport, and eventually only between three users. Several days ago, Ozguroot (talk · contribs), a suspected sockpuppet, canvassed 15 users, all who have expressed a negative viewpoint, to come to the discussion and utterly overwhelm a budding and tenuously reached compromise, which users are now beginning to renege on. This is the second time he has canvassed users to the dispute. Prior to the canvassing incident, I requested mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-02-04/Passport, with no response. I have reported Ozguroot's canvassing at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ozguroot_canvassing_again, again with no response. I am utterly disheartened by the community apathy, it seems our dislike for the "dramafest at ANI" has become a disdain for dispute resolution of any kind, an apathy for processes of justice. To make sure the weeks' worth of discussion at Talk:Passport aren't undermined by an egomaniacal nationalist, a sockpuppet, and their canvassed hordes, and in light of the utter apathy I have received from the community, I am notifying all editors who expressed support for the proposal. I am aware of the tenuous ledge on which I am pirouetting, but in the absence of better advice (as sought at ANI), I am sure you will agree it is only fair to attempt to balance the canvassed users who expressed a negative viewpoint. Your participation is required - not to be melodramatic, but to quote Edmund Burke: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". —what a crazy random happenstance 14:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I presume that I caused some problem with my sandbox [[8]], by copying the entire AMR 191 page, so that I could work on it, without screwing up the article itself.

For the sake of my own education, should I remove the categories, from any article page, that I put into my sandbox, while working on improving the article? Thanks for any advice you can provide. EditorASC (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a new Wikipedian looking for advice. I'm pursuing a delicate issue and wonder if you could go into my talk page and see if I'm making mistakes. Any advice how (or if) I should pursue this. Thanks. Slightsmile (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Slightsmile

An article that you have been involved in editing, Centre stick vs side-stick, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre stick vs side-stick. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ahunt (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know, the six categories I made (Category:Transportation in Cook County, Illinois, Category:Transportation in DuPage County, Illinois, Category:Transportation in Kane County, Illinois, Category:Transportation in Lake County, Illinois, Category:Transportation in McHenry County, Illinois, and Category:Transportation in Will County, Illinois) are for roads too. So if you see a road that goes through any of those counties, be sure to add them too. ----DanTD (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Bridges? You bet. Throw 'em in. ----DanTD (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Funandtrvl

I have reverted your edits to the two Indian articles which were causing malformed citation-neeed categories to be populated [9] [10].

It seemed to me that a better solution was to fix the template, so that it did not break the {{citation needed}} tags. Details at Template talk:Infobox Indian jurisdiction#Formatnum_removed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Standard practice with county templates is not to include neighborhoods of municipalities, even if (such as in this case) the neighborhood was formerly a separate community. Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That's done with all Illinois templates, as well as those for other states: for example, see {{Cook County, Illinois}}. Neighborhoods are neither municipalities nor unincorporated communities. Nyttend (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

For the purposes of county templates, it's a neighborhood — it's an area within a municipality. We only include communities if they're incorporated or if they're located in unincorporated areas. Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No denying that it's a populated place; however, neighborhoods of municipalities are also recorded as populated places. See the GNIS entry for Lilydale, Chicago for an example. Nyttend (talk) 05:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought this blogpost might interest you. Cheers.--Milowent (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Funandtrvl, I posted on your user page before about updating redirects in disambiguation pages, previously about an edit to continuity. I want to make similar points again, this time prompted by your change to Positive:

• update surrounding text: for instance "Positive operator, ... a bounded linear operator ..." was changed to "Positive element, ... a bounded linear operator..." which is incorrect (an element of a C*-algebra is a more general concept than a bounded operator) and impossible to understand (it doesn't say what "element" is being referred to; here it's an element of a C*-algebra!). All three times you removed "positive" entirely from the link title, you didn't compensate by saying in their description the relation to postivity. The surrounding text of positive formula to positive set theory also became incorrect.
• redirects are fine *into* more general pages: for instance Positive test was changed to diagnostic test, but this is a slightly different concept; a redirect is explicitly allowed in disambiguation page when it redirects to a more general page. This is also true of Positive number -> Negative and non-negative numbers and Positive formula -> Positive set theory
• redirects are better than masking a page title with piping: here the change I disagree with is [[Converging lens]] -> [[Lens (optics)|Converging lens]]
• use common sense: At the end of the day, do you really need a rule book to tell you that the change Positive number -> Negative and non-negative numbers is a terrible idea for the page Positive? Surely it's self-evident? The same applies to all the cases you found article titles with no mention of the word positive (even if you had updated the surrounding text).

I know your edits are in good faith, but in this case the article would have been much better off if you hadn't touched it; every change was destructive! (The exception is Positive freedom to Positive liberty, which seems completely neutral to me.) Only slighly destructive I'll admit, but because few people maintain disambiguation pages they're likely to sit around for months, confusing people that pass by them. Besides, why take the time to make these changes if they're all negative? Quietbritishjim (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

A big part of the problem here are confusing guidelines in WP:DABMOS, especially the phrase "Subject to certain exceptions ... redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages" (although I maintain what I said above about WP:COMMON). I've started a discussion to clarify them that you may wish to participate in. (You pointed me at this last time I posted on your user page and I never replied. I'm aorry about that, but getting consensus for a change list this takes some time and effort, and I just never got round to it.) Quietbritishjim (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, you are of Polish Ancestry? cool , please help me that the Polish AMerican Category will exist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.19.169.238 (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Last fall you indicated that you continue to be active with WP:CHICAGO. If you continue to be active please update your active date at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members. Also, we are planning a Chicago Meetup. If you will be able to attend the meetup from 10:30-11:45 a.m. on Saturday May 1, 2010 at the UIC Student Center West, please sign as an indication of your intent.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. In http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rhine&oldid=269692284 (Februari 10, 2009) you updated the geobox template for the Rhine article. At that point you changed the units used to imperial ones instead of metric. Why did you do that? 82.139.81.111 (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I'll work on updating the infobox. --Funandtrvl (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Funandtrvl.

I would like to inform you that a new version of WPCleaner is available replacing the old version (v1.43) dating back to almost a year. Unfortunately, going from version 1.43 to 2.0 automatically isn't possible and will require a new installation. It's necessary to install version 2.0 to take advantage of updates and bug fixes. Version 1.43 will have to be uninstalled manually, as there are no more updates for it.

The installation procedure is described at Wikipedia:WPCleaner/Installation.

Note: for usage in Bot mode, I strongly advise to check the modifications to be sure that the tasks run correctly

--NicoV ^{(Talk on frwiki)} 20:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, will do, thanks Funandtrvl (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

My name is Jason and I'm currently attempting to improve the article for investor Lee Fixel on his behalf via PR agency Finsbury as part of my work with Beutler Ink. I noticed you're an active and experienced member of WikiProject Finance & Investment, and I was wondering if you might have a moment to review this request.

I've disclosed my conflict on interest on the article's talk page and submitted an initial request here to update the Early life and education section. I'm avoiding direct editing and seeking volunteer assistance to update the article on my behalf. So far I've asked for help at WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Finance & Investment, and WikiProject United States, but no editors have replied, which is why I thought to reach out to you.

Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Inkian Jason: I can look at it, but it might be this evening or this weekend before I can do it. Thanks! Funandtrvl (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

No problem, and thank you! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello again! I'm still hoping you might have a moment to review this request at your convenience, but let me know if I should try to find other active editors to help. Thanks again! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm so sorry, I briefly looked at it, but I've been very busy at work. Maybe you can find someone at WP:BUSINESS project?

Thanks for the suggestion. I've posted a request for help at WikiProject Business, and will try to find an active editor here. If you don't mind, I may come back to you if another editor doesn't review these 2 sentences in the near future. Thanks again! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I've been editing textile-related articles for a few months and came across Wikipedia:WikiProject Textile Arts, where you contributed to the main page several years ago. A couple questions for you:

1) Would you mind if I made some changes to the project page? I'm attempting to follow some steps at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Revival in hopes of making the project more friendly, active and welcoming. I don't mean to intrude, just want to help.

2) Are you interested in participating in the project? We have a couple conversations starting over at the talk page.

I see from your user page that you are a major contributor to Wikipedia... wow! Thanks for your work here.

Enby (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Please update the project page with any new ideas!! I'll help as much as I can, thanks. Funandtrvl (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Funandtrvl, I re-added |dates= to Template:Infobox military unit/doc. Over 20,000 articles use |dates= while only 800 use |start_date= and 100 use |end_date=.--Melbguy05 (talk) 03:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Melbguy05:, yes, that makes sense, thanks for fixing it! Funandtrvl (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Please see my proposal to rename Category:Airlines in Alaska to Category:Airlines based in Alaska Category:Airlines of Hawaii to Category:Airlines based in Hawaii Hugo999 (talk) 09:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

With edits like [11]. These are usually there on purpose, because many people try to update these pages themselves, or wonder why an article is or isn't on the list. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} —Preceding undated comment added 02:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: because when the content is within a sidebar, like this diff of WikiProject Indiana, it expanded the page almost 2 pages to the right. (it doesn't show now because I removed 4-5 of the mboxes from the featured content subpages). Funandtrvl (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The solution in those cases is to wrap the banner in noinclude tags like this

<noinclude>
{{User:JL-Bot/Project content
...
}}</noinclude>

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Okay, that was one of the options, that I thought about, but I wasn't sure that the noinclude tags would stay put, once the Bot makes its run. But, if the tags stay put, then that is the better solution. Thanks, Funandtrvl (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The bot only edits the stuff between the two <!-- Start of content generated by JL-Bot --> / <!-- End of content generated by JL-Bot --> Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

thank you! Funandtrvl (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Re this edit, I think I've seen some infobox templates that adjust the label so that it produces Managing editor if |managing_editor= is used but Managing editors if |managing_editors= is used. It's hard to retroactively introduce that functionality once the (s) has been used for a while, so it might be better to set it up now if that works. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: if you think that would be a better way, you or I can change it. Funandtrvl (talk) 06:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Funandtrvl, done here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: TYVM! I'd like your input at Template talk:Infobox newspaper#More updates to titles, regards Funandtrvl (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates § Naming of navbox categories. —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, when you remove a task force from a WikiProject banner, as here, there is no need to renumber subsequent task forces - {{WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces}} and {{WPBannerMeta/hooks/tfnested}} both handle gaps in sequence without problems. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64: That's good to know, thanks. Is it in the WPBannerMeta instructions? Funandtrvl (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

It's implied by omission - the doc says the value of n is an integer between 1 and 10, it doesn't say that they need to be consecutive. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Please see my proposal to rename several categories including Category:Florida infrastructure to Category:Infrastructure in Florida Hugo999 (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

https://web.facebook.com/thinoothinoo123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.228.175.69 (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:India company templates

Could you please review why there are so many company pages showing up in this category, which I guess is only for Templates related to Indian companies Tharun S Yadla (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tharun S Yadla: Yes, the category was outside of the "noinclude" tags, so that would categorize every page that the template is transcluded on. I've fixed it by placing the category inside of the noinclude tags. It will take awhile before the category will empty out, due to caching. Funandtrvl (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

HI ! I'm new and I don't have the required access to move a page. Can you move|rename a page ? Because the one who have created it was in public account : only the IP Address appears so impossible to contact.

The Page is "Lists of films by studio" AND Should be renamed as "Lists of Major Studios|Distribuors by Country". Also the Page Should Stay in the current Categories which are good like that ! ACI99-0001 (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)ACI99-0001

@ACI99-0001: thanks for contacting me! The piping (|) in the article title will be a problem, and usually things are not capitalized in the titles, per WP's MOS:TITLES. So, I won't move this page at this time. I would suggest that you contact WT:FILM, the WikiProject about films, to see if there is a consensus to move the page title. Thanks, Funandtrvl (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

OK ! Thank for your answer ! ACI99-0001 (talk) 04:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)ACI99-0001

My name is Peter and want to edit the section of tourism security, I added some comments about Emerald group publishing which is the first publisher which created a series in this theme, my edits have been reverted by Mrollie saying that it is a predatory or vanity press. It is an error, Emerald has an entry in Wikipedia. Peter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.170.101.27 (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I haven't yet had a chance to look, however, the concept of tourism security & its impact probably would be best added to the Impacts of tourism article, or something more closely related to security when traveling, maybe travel warning? If your edit was reversed due to its sources, you may want to review WP:RS, before adding it back to the article. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

probably I will try.

I did as noted, but Mrollie again reversed the material!!!! it is very hard to deal with this user.. may you help us?

Do you work for the company that you are writing about? I have read the paragraphs that were reverted, and it can be considered to be promotional for the publishing firm. The paragraphs will need to be re-written, following the advice in WP:PROMOTION. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This is part of a long term campaign to promote one of the editors of the book series. This has been going on for a long time, see for example [12], [13], [14] among others, and note that Maximiliano Korstanje has been create protected because of persistent sock puppetry. MrOllie (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits at Portal:Africa/Featured picture. Removing Template:POTD/2008-09-27 from the list is great, because it is a duplicate of Portal:Africa/Featured picture/23, which I overlooked. However, I don't quite understand the reason for removal of Template:POTD/2011-12-15 and Template:POTD/2021-01-08, both of which seem perfectly fine featured pictures, which are on topic for Portal:Africa. Could you please clarify that? —⁠andrybak (talk) 08:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Andrybak: thank you for letting me know, I'm going to take a look at it to see if I can rectify the edits. I'll get back to you soon, thanks! --Funandtrvl (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Andrybak:, I believe it's fixed now, there are the 2 POTD's and the 40 subpages that are displaying. Thanks for letting me know! --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Assam Vidhan Sabha constituency, Template:Infobox Kerala Niyamasabha Constituency, Template:Infobox Vidhan Sabha constituency and Template:Infobox state assembly constituency has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox Indian state legislative assembly constituency. You are invited to comment on the discussion at wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 July 14#Infobox Assam Vidhan Sabha constituency. Thank you. 122.167.185.249 (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed that you are a member of several Wiki projects connected to business, finance and investments, so perhaps you would be interested in helping out with edits on the Glenn Dubin page. I recently made an edit request on that article's talk page, and I am hoping you can take a look there and implement those edits. I would also like to point out, that since the date that I made that request there have been additional edits to the introduction, making the "undue weight" issue even more urgent, basically accusing Dubin of crimes which he is not being investigated for and which there is no evidence for. I hope you can look at and edit this so the result will be an introduction that is NPOV. Thanks so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AP for Dubin (talk • contribs) 14:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it, but I haven't been following the article & its history, so I'm not up-to-date with the problems. ---Funandtrvl (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Funandtrvl. Thanks for taking a look at Glenn Dubin's article and my edit requests. I have since answered your concerns at Talk:Glenn Dubin. I hope my answers are sufficient for you to now make my requested edits. In addition, please let me know if there is any other information you need to help you implement the requests. Thanks so much. AP for Dubin (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! I've been so busy with work, I don't know when I'll be able to continue the edit, but I will try. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for your assistance so far with Glenn Dubin's article. I know you indicated how busy you are and I just wanted to circle back a few weeks later and see if you have time to look at the talk page suggestions and clarifications I made. Thanks so much for any help you can offer! AP for Dubin (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi again, I hope all is well and that you can take a look soon at my most recent requests on the Glenn Dubin talk page. Your help is highly appreciated. AP for Dubin (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, re this edit. Not all transport in Scotland is rail - there are roads too, and waterways. To quote from WP:TIS, focussing on, for example, rail, air, rapid transit, ferries etc., their associated features and anything else that is applicable. So slapping {{WikiProject Trains}} on e.g. Talk:Caledonian Canal is not appropriate. Compare Talk:David MacBrayne. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

You've also been causing a lot of duplication and miscategorisation - for example, in this edit it's set |importance=high and left |Scotland-importance= blank, with the effect that the page is now in both Category:Mid-importance rail transport articles and in Category:High-importance rail transport articles, besides being in Category:Unknown-importance Scotland Transport articles instead of in Category:High-importance Scotland Transport articles. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Redrose64: The Transport in Scotland total articles are now at 2,281+, whereas yesterday, they were at 489 articles. In trying to salvage the TF by assigning it to one of its main projects, there will always be problems. Transport in Scotland is drawing tags from Template:WikiProject Scotland and Template:WikiProject Buses, in addition to Template:WikiProject Trains. Would it be better to have it be a wrapper for WP Scotland? Also, I can go through the 2,200 articles and remove the duplicate tags. Or is there a better way to do that? --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Where were all these changes/merges discussed? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Following up on this, this change has lead to strange outcomes like Talk:List of motorways in the United Kingdom categorized within WikiProject Trains, which isn't right at all (see [15]). Mackensen (talk) 11:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Redrose64 and Funandtrvl: I've extracted from AnomeBot's contributions a rough list of the affected article talk pages: User:Mackensen/Transport in Scotland articles. Mackensen (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

what tool is the best to go and update this talk pages? Does AWB work, or is there another tool? --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I used WP:JWB, which is the same idea. Even then, I was manually checking each page to verify banners. I finished it up last night so I think we're sorted. If there were articles substed after that initial run then I missed them, but I doubt there are many, and a fair number were fixed by other editors. Mackensen (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. You must be 18 years of age or older, reside in the United States to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, [email protected] Apolo1991 (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Companies based in Colima indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Giants, Monsters & Dragons, An Encyclopedia of Folklore, Legend and Myth, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giants, Monsters & Dragons, An Encyclopedia of Folklore, Legend and Myth. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — MrDolomite • Talk 14:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You have made a number of edits to User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects which broke the wildcard code for some projects. For example, this edit reduced the bot search list from 3,411 pages to 6 pages and this edit reduced the bot search list from over 25,000 pages to 0. I have temporarily reverted you to ensure the bot continues to work correctly, but is there some valid reason for what you are doing? Road Wizard (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I have just spotted that you altered the {{WP UK Politics}} template here with the edit summary "add proj cat for bots to work". Is there some bot that was not working correctly? I thought all bots that the Project was signed up to were functioning adequately well. Road Wizard (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but I am still not aware of the problem. The bot was functioning perfectly well without flooding the main category with 25,000 pages, so I am unsure why the change was needed. Road Wizard (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI - I've added back the wildcard for UK Politics & deleted MAIN_CAT in the template. --Funandtrvl (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

—Farix (t | c) 01:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

—Farix (t | c) 01:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on sorting out the DASHBOT run on Chess BLP's. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! Have a good rest of the holiday! --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

See WP:NEWSECTION - thanks! –xeno^talk 17:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ooops! --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks for your help on this list, I will start working on fixing all of this in a half hour. I wish Tim was around! Okip 00:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I responded Tim1357 (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Is 'national ID cards' a valid category for that page, since there's no requirement for a PR to have a PR card? I'm not sure exactly what that category is intended to cover, but it doesn't seem to fit. Mark Grant (talk) 05:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello there. Sorry to bother you, but you are (titularly at least) a member of WP:WikiProject Economics, as defined by this category. If you don't know me, I'm a Wikipedia administrator, but an unqualified economist. I enjoy writing about economics, but I'm not very good at it, which is why I would like to support in any way I can the strong body of economists here on Wikipedia. I'm only bothering you because you are probably one of them. Together, I'd like us to establish the future direction of WikiProject Economics, but first, we need to know who we've got to help.

Whatever your area of expertise or level of qualification, if you're interested in helping with the WikiProject (even if only as part of a larger commitment to this wonderful online encyclopedia of ours), would you mind adding your signature to this page? It only takes a second. Thank you.

Message delivered on behalf of User:Jarry1250 by LivingBot.

Please note I may have misinterpreted your recent actions at the Australian project categories

I think a change like that might have gone with an explanation in hand to the Australian noticeboard - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board before that - Australian places ia a moribund project that has never had anythng to do with the state projects - to connect theme is a bit sort of out of place dare I say it - however I will place a comment (in WP:AGF) at the noticeboard - please dont shoot the messenger - I really think unexplained (unless I missed some explanation somewhere) (ie rationale - and possible conversation at the Australin project about it) will tend to arouse some interest - which way I have no idea - cheers SatuSuro 12:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah regularly Australian project finds out after the fact a larger number of CFD issues (never really resolved that one) and although we try to face the issues with a resigned sense of humour - there is a sense that project doesnt exist as far as some of the more mega trends here on WP - and I do appreciate your serious tone and take and explanation at the noticeboard - that is appreciated - now the other can see as well - thanks SatuSuro 23:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! I'm still working on cleaning up some stuff, so don't worry if you see me doing things! --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Now I personally realise what is going on - hey its great - important stuff - I simply was carrying the flag of the oz project - we need to feel collectively that we arent left out when the lights change colour - the cfd and a few other areas were quite bruising experiences for the collective sense of humour - almost as bad as animal attacks in australia (dont let me explain or Ill never get off - which I need to do) - good stuff! SatuSuro 23:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar or flack jacket, helmet or gas mask - some of those participants are long lost and should be on the inactive - I dont think anyone has done a cleanup in that musty mouldy cupboard for years - youre a brave person even venturing into there :( SatuSuro 02:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I know, I found some names that hadn't edited in over 4 years, and others that are on the permanent block list! I haven't yet finished it, it's quite a task, as you know. I wish we could somehow combine the listing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Assessment#Participants with the regular /Participants pg. Maybe we should transclude it, so there's only one list?? --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought each state project had a participant list and or page as well, phew it smells in there (blocked and long gone editors still on - smelly socks) SatuSuro 02:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see that they do. I saw at least one large project, which I can't remember at the moment, that transcluded all the participant lists on one page, so they automatically update. This would be possible to do, maybe we should make the respective participant lists to be subpages of each of the states' projects and then transclude them (could use collapsible boxes) onto the WP Australia main page. --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If it was possible to automate something - it would be very usefull - we seem to have lost some intrepid gnomes in the last 12 months and any automation would be useful SatuSuro 02:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Gawd I thought only milhist and its invisible subsidiaries (like WP ships) had 'adminsyrtators' - at oztrylian wikipedia project we have the noticeboard - it is our level playing field :| - sorry - I should have heaped more praise for your thankless task (as I say often we have lost our gnomes extraordinarie to real life - so if I hadnt said it before -= brilliant work - hard slog and abused to boot - but your work is appreciated SatuSuro 14:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! But I have seen admins for other projects too, it's just a suggestion that would help out us newcomers... :) --Funandtrvl (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

		The Minor Barnstar
		Great job! PWdiamond 20:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts with the AFL Portal, but please don't hide the article section. Everything that's going to be there should stay there. Also, ALL suggestions for DYK should be below the header and not above. I also reduced the size of the picture because it was too big. Could you let me know what you have planned in the future so we can work together on this? Team work is better than just doing our own thing. AFL-Cool 04:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, don't you think that the article section should be set up before it is displayed, so that it looks like it's somewhat finished?? According to the portal's history, there hasn't been an active article section there since the portal was created in March 2006. I personally think it looks more finished and polished if the unused sections are "edited out" until they are ready to display and thus is the explanation for my edit. As for working together, I'm all for that, although it was hard to tell that you were the one responsible for the portal, since the portal's editing history showed that you had only made one previous edit to it since its creation on 12 April 2010. --Funandtrvl (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've only just started working on it after the Portal was brought to the attention of the AFL Project group. Making it look "polished" right this minute isn't practical because there is so much still to do, particularly getting article assessments done properly (it has been suggested in the Project Talk Page that a lot of the articles aren't even B Class even though they have been classified as such. Showcase articles IMO should be at GA status at least and the total articles in that area stands at only nine. If the section is hidden the risk is high that it will be forgotten and we can't have that. AFL-Cool 12:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Funandtrvl - I'd respectfully disagree that my suggestions to add the travel magazine to the travel website pages are not 'advertising' as you have put. If so then why have the other two entities there? The fact is that website was the first to have that particular revenue model, and since others have copied it, it would make sense to recongise the original. Andrewghayes (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)andrewghayes

In general, a person or organization added to a list (or a listing within an article) should have a pre-existing article to establish notability. Otherwise, the additions are usually considered spam, and if you check the history of the travel website article, it has had a huge number of spam links added to it. So, I'm only asking that you create an article first, before adding it to the travel website article. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Will do - it is on my long list of things to do =) -andrewghayes

Cripes once bitten, always coming back for more - there is always more... SatuSuro 01:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I wanted to say thanks for cleaning up WikiProject Essays ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 01:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, and have a good weekend! --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi -- I reverted your hotcat addition of this category to Emma Goldman, and posted a note on Talk:Emma Goldman about it. Basically Goldman lived in many places, and I don't see any justification for this particular one. She is certainly not defined in any meaningful sense by living in McHenry County. Opinions welcome; we should continue this on the EG talk page if necessary. --Lquilter (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It's generally considered unacceptable to edit a users [sandbox] page. These pages are used for scratch edits and works in progress, and may be be filled with notes for future edits. Granted, this happened a while ago, but it still should not be done. Thank you. Ljmajer (talk) 08:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I've responded at your user talk page. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I read your message, but it did not actually point to an actual diff. I think you posted your message in error. I did not edit any diplomatic mission articles around that date. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• I wasn't paricularly aware of that particular one - I'll just keep this one in mind. When I make category names based on consulates I'll stick to the naming scheme mentioned in the CFD. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, section title says it all. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moocha (talk • contribs) 20:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey there. You seem to be one of the leaders of WikiProject Illinois. I've posted an idea to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Illinois for an Illinois Governors work group to address WP's scanty coverage of our governors. Look at Ninian Edwards, for example. I didn't get much of a response, however. Is there anything more I can do... or should I just start writing by myself and forget the work group? Fishal (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ciao! I've surfed on your nice project page after, lately, I was adding mostly articles on medieval edifices in Catalonia (if you're interested you can see them at my contributions page for last month. On my way I stumbled in the Pau Claris i Casademunt article, noticing it's a crude automatic translation made by some genius from the original Catalan article. Can you help? I begun to correct something by my knowledge of Catalan is limited and noticed I was tending to cut where not understanding the original text. Let me know and thanks a lot! (by the way, why there are no members in the project so far? Catalonia is marvellous!!). --'''Attilios''' (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to help as much as possible, although I'm much better at Castilian than Catalan! --Funandtrvl (talk) 03:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I am eager to see the end of your work... the article has still many unreadable parts. Let me know. If you can't finish I think it's better to restored the last decent version, waiting for somebody to finishing translation from Catalan. Ciaooooo!!

Still working on it! --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, yeah I saw the goalie mask and was about to create a new section for it but then noticed goalie masks have their own article so I placed it in a suitable location in that article. I searched Wikimedia Commons for a pic of a hockey helmet with cage and/or full facemask but there doesn't appear to be any. I played and also still involved with college ice hockey where the full cage is currently manditory. I'll look through some of my pictures for a suitable hockey equipment picture. If not I can take a new one of a hockey helmet with cage. Bhockey10 (talk) 05:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That's terrific, thanks! --Funandtrvl (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Funandtrvl

Coulde you tell me why the United States Patent is not reliable source for you? => http://www.freepatentsonline.com/2089671.html for recoil-operated roller locking mechanism base on patent n° US 20 89 671 of july 8th, 1933 by the polish designer Edward Stecke for Panstwowe Wytworine Uzbrojenia.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.227.169 (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see my response at your talk pg. --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Third time lucky, hopefully. Please stop collapsing talk archives to >32k in size when they've been explicitly split to that size. While you may not have problems accessing them, others do. You've yet failed to provide any compelling argument for why you're doing so, and it's a major inconvenience to me. I've undeleted Template talk:Infobox former country/Archive 3, Template talk:Infobox former country/Archive 4 and Template talk:Infobox former country/Archive 5 and don't expect this to be undone again (or any other pages manually merged into huge clumps) without some semblance of a discussion beforehand. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - [[user talk--Funandtrvl (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC):thumperward|talk]] 10:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Upon seeing that the archiving on that page was only 32kB, I assumed the settings must have been very old and needed to be adjusted. In our previous discussions, you had said that the "warning notice" goes on the page at about 75kB. This brings several questions to mind:

1. Why would that setting (75kB) not be satisfactory then, instead of 32kB, which produces multiple, small archive pages?
2. Must the archive size be set to the lowest common demoninator (i.e, 32kB), to take in consideration aging computer hardware, when the WP warning does not activate until around 75kB+?
3. How are you pulling up and reading the many, very large articles out there, such as "Scotland" or "American Civil War" with your current hardware, and are you also reporting your access problems to the respective editors or WikiProjects relegated to those large articles?
4. Is your statement, "and don't expect this to be undone again (or any other pages manually merged into huge clumps) without some semblance of a discussion beforehand.", a threat of some kind? Would you explain the meaning of that statement, please?

I would appreciate your answers, thank you. --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The limit set by the warning notice appears to be arbitrary; at one time that warning kicked in at 32k and appears to have been raised at the whim of other editors who, like yourself, did not personally see 32k as being a practical length. To the best of my knowledge there has never been a broad consensus as to exactly what the limit should be. Nevertheless, 75kb still results in extremely large talk archives (40-60 threads usually) and there's no practical benefit to it over 32k archives that I've ever seen explained.

Whether I am physically capable of loading a long talk page is not the point. Whether I am able to practically use them as a reference is, which requires such things as their taking less than three minutes to load or being able to scroll through them in a reasonable length of time. Furthermore, browsing archives of that length is also a huge pain. If I find editors who don't archive their talk pages regularly I do request that they do so, and the same goes for WikiProjects. But again, none of that is a fit explanation for why such huge pages are necessary except in pathological cases like the admin noticeboard archives where megabytes of traffic are generated every day.

The meaning of my "expectation" sentence was that as I am aware that you are an editor in good standing who is presumably capable of responding amicably to a polite request given you three times over a course of more than a year, I would find it extremely disconcerting to find it happening again, especially as you have not yet given any more solid rationale for it than "what's wrong with a longer length". Indeed, I would probably be forced to consider that as a deliberate attempt to disrupt my editing habits. That doesn't help anyone on the project and would likely lead to even more wasted time than has already been taken on this issue. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you are still having problems with archive pages over 32kB. However, in creating new talk archive pages, I'm going to follow the example at: User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo, which is set at 70k. I know this is probably not going to be satisfactory to you, but if I set it to 32k, I'm sure someone will revert it, as was done to your edit here: [16]. The technical problems are discussed somewhat at: Wikipedia:Article size#Technical issues, and I also think that this issue may be one to post at WP:VPP, to get other opinions on this matter, since we can't seem to come to some sort of an agreement here. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I should point out that the editor who set that 70k value on the MiszaBot doc was me, when I changed it from the ridiculous previous value of 250k. That nobody ever challenged that is yet another indication that there's no consensus as to what value is correct. But anyway, what you set new pages to is less important to me than your having manually collapsed several archives I made into on super-archive after my having asked you twice not to. All I'm asking is that you not go out of your way to change that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay, now I think I understand. :) Regards, --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If have problem where the reflist template, or its equivalent {{verwysings}} in the Afrikaans wikipedia, does not have the same appearance as in the English wikipedia. Some http-links are shown explicitly where they should be hidden. Could you perhaps assist, or direct me to someone who can? The problem appears on the page af:Britse Oos-Indiese Kompanjie. JMK (talk) 06:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see my answer at your talk page. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, will do so. JMK (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Funandtrvl,

The links I added to reliability related topics were/are a service to the reliability enigeering community. Although I am affilitated with the American Society for Quality and some other Reliability functions the links are meant as awarness to interested persons, and in no way I have any conflict of interst. It is like you placing a link to the Univ of Notre Dame on a page related to economics - you do not benfit but make readers aware of a source of knowledge.

What do you think?

Regards,

ASQ-Reliabiltiy-Div —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASQ-Reliability-Div (talk • contribs) 01:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm assuming that ASQ is a professional society, I would recommend adding only one external link, not two to the same article page. Please read these Wikipedia guidelines: Conflict of interest, WP:EL and WP:ADVERT, as they explain my concerns with the external links. Please do not add links with a "dot.com", because those are usually for businesses that are for-profit, and that can be considered advertising. The link to the Reliability Dept. of the "dot.org" is okay. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The relevant policies and guidelines are WP:NOTLINK, WP:COI, WP:SOAP, WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:USERNAME. ASQ-Reliabiltiy-Div should first read WP:USERNAME and decide if he/she wants to try to continue using the account as is (which may lead to the account being blocked), change the username of the account, or retire the account and start a new one. Next, he should review WP:COI and WP:EL and respond to the related concerns already on his user talk page. A dot.org link is subject to WP:EL exactly as a dot.com link. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much, Ronz, for the additional clarification. I didn't realize about "dot.org" links, thanks for pointing that out! --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Funandtrvl,

The links I added to reliability related topics were/are a service to the reliability enigeering community. Although I am affilitated with the American Society for Quality and some other Reliability functions the links are meant as awarness to interested persons, and in no way I have any conflict of interst. It is like you placing a link to the Univ of Notre Dame on a page related to economics - you do not benfit but make readers aware of a source of knowledge.

What do you think?

Regards,

ASQ-Reliabiltiy-Div, 2010-08-26 ASQ-Reliability-Div (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

See above, --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You added the Independent Tribune to the category. I'm wondering if there are other newspapers that were part of the recent sale that have not been added.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee:, I've added all of the ones that have WP articles to the category. I've compared them to the list of publications at the Lee Enterprises website. If there are more, please add! Funandtrvl (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

They said there were 30 of them. That's why I was hoping someone else was.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I've updated the template too, at Template:Lee Enterprises. I believe that almost all of the publications are on there. Funandtrvl (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)