User talk:Wdchk/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Wdchk, for the period January 2011 to December 2013. 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.

Hi - welcome to Wikipedia This is not the formal welcome which someone ought to give you with all sorts of useful stuff, but I couldn't help noticing you have come on board with an excellent article and a good approach to the project. Well done and if you feel like joining the Rowing Project it would be good to have you. Regards Motmit (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Motmit. I tried to take the time to do my homework. I felt like it was a courtesy to the subject of my article. Wdchk (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on the Haiti edit. I got distracted. Hope it looks okay now. Student7 (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Textorus's talk page. Textorus (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Upon thinking it over, Wdchk, may I offer some friendly advice? I think you overreacted there, placing a huge notice on the article page, and another huge notice on my talk page, for what is a pretty minor and debatable thing. Many thousands of articles all across Wikipedia use quotes as long as the one I placed on Barnardo's page: for example, here's one I just happened to see today, two of them in a row, in fact. And going to the trouble of tracking me down months after the original post - when you could see from the edit history that I was not a frequent editor of that article - well, it all seems like overkill. Like Barney Fife rushing in his squad car to arrest somebody for jaywalking, with the siren blaring and the lights flashing. When in fact, all you had to do if the quote bothered your conscience, was simply paraphrase it in one sentence, as I suggested in my first reply, or split it into a couple of quotes - WP is the encyclopedia anybody can edit, right? I know you meant well, and I appreciate your concern for the quality of WP, but slapping somebody so hard like that for such a small and questionable offense will infuriate people and drive them away from wanting to contribute to this outfit, ya know? You might want to reserve the big guns to use if, say, somebody quotes an entire article from the New York Times, or another totally blatant piece of obvious plagiarism. There's a lot of that around WP that would be a better use of your time and sleuthing skills, perhaps. Textorus (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Textorus. Thank you for your comments, and I respect your opinion. There is a procedure for when a possible copyright problem needs further investigation, and I was following that procedure. I agree with you that the article template is a bit shocking, but that's the template we're asked to use. Regarding the user talk page template, I did spend some time editing the text to make it more appropriate. (I didn't want to insult you with "Welcome to Wikipedia …".) The intent was to give you a chance to contribute to the discussion, should you wish to do so. Please be assured that slapping couldn't be further from my mind. I simply want to establish whether we can directly quote that amount of text from this source. Best regards, – Wdchk (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Wdchk, my friend, the procedure you reference is for text "that looks like it may have been copy / pasted from elsewhere" - but every quotation on Wikipedia is "copied from elsewhere." That's the definition of a quotation, right? The procedure is designed to deal with cases of blatant plagiarism, where people recklessly copy chunks of text without using quotation marks/block quotes or citing sources. But I'm not going to wikilawyer with you, man. Hear me one more time: what you did was overkill and inappropriate. I'm a mature, experienced writer who's been writing and editing on WP for the last five years - see my userpage for a list of major edits and articles I've created - and no one has ever slapped me upside the head as you did. If you insist on playing Barney Fife and using a cannon to swat a fly, one day soon somebody less kindly disposed than I is going to hurt your feelings and nobody will want to play Wikipedia with you again. Please think it over. Textorus (talk) 08:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

Thanks for your welcome message.

I really like the work of that charity Buttle UK and want to help them by making their entry more correct.

Do you have any pointers as to what I can do to make the entry more 'correct'?

Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by London111 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's great that you are motivated to improve Buttle UK. One very useful thing you did already was to add links from other articles to this one, so that the {{Orphan}} tag could be removed. Please see the article's talk page for my thoughts on the most important to-do's. Cheers, – Wdchk (talk) 04:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you correctly guessed my intention. Thanks for fixing my mistake. Peter Chastain (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my mistake there. I don't quite know what happened. benzband (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the error - I meant to redirect it to Kaili City. It's now been fixed. Thanks for the heads up. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing my circular redirect on {{La Sonnambula}}. — Robert Greer (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

61st Troop Carrier Squadron Is fixed. the modern unit needs to be re-written. Ty for pointing this out !! :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks WdChk. For others reading this page, I recently started getting interested in the portals and community aspects of Wikipedia, and learned that there exists the option of welcoming people to Wikipedia. I became facetiously bitter that no one had ever welcomed me in my several years of membership, and so I posted my own welcome info. (Okay, to be perfectly honest, that was originally a mistake meant to be posted on someone else's page, but then I thought it was funny that I had welcomed myself, and so I went with it.)

But all the same, it was a fantastic surprise to see a welcome note from another user the very next morning! Please have a userbox from me :) This marks the first interaction on my user page that was not from a bot (or a rejected article). Previously I had been considering not signing my messages just to get another friendly note from SineBot! So thanks for making me less pathetic.

Dr.queso bought us a round of drinks in a celebration of wikipedia editors well met..

Dr.queso = talk 18:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for the round of drinks. – Wdchk (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Ignore the vandalism warning which Twinkle sent to you by mistake. The IP concerned is evading WP:BAN. See User:Richard Daft if you are interested. Sorry again. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 14:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. I found another edit that I've reverted and I've reported IP to WP:AVI although the main repository for Daft is his SPI. I need a bit more practice with Twinkle. Thanks for your help. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 14:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for letting me know. – Wdchk (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Duh. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

As you were involved in a previous discussion regarding this issue, I am informing you of a new discussion proposing that the Teahouse be linked from the Welcome template(s). The discussion can be found here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Man, I'm really off my game lately, aren't I. Thanks for the fix.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem. You're welcome. – Wdchk (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm just letting you know I have approved your request for Reviewer rights. I have also given you access to Rollback which you might find even more useful - do remember however, that it must only be used for very clear cases of pure vandalism. Happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

http://theclicker.today.com/_news/2012/10/02/14183918-reality-star-antoine-ashley-aka-sahara-davenport-of-rupauls-drag-race-dead-at-27?ocid=ansent11

please readd the change — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.193.193.157 (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Readd what? Davenport's death is now covered in the Sahara Davenport article, with references. – Wdchk (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

this is a shared ip. i apologize for the change to Woodstock Academy i will creat my own acct. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.204.9.86 (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey all :).

We're (very shortly) closing down this development cycle for Page Curation. It's genuinely been a pleasure to talk with you all and build software that is so close to my own heart, and also so effective. The current backlog is 9 days, and I've never seen it that low before.

However! Closing up shop does not mean not making any improvements. First-off, this is your last chance to give us a poke about unresolved bugs or report new ones on the talkpage. If something's going wrong, we want to know about it :). Second, we'll hopefully be taking another pass over the software next year. If you've got ideas for features Page Curation doesn't currently have, stick them here.

Again, it's been an honour. Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

This is just a tribute.

Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.

In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Why do you care if I edit a wikipedia page that shouldn't even exist? Why do you care about some mayor in a town in the philippines? Jesus. What if I say that I edited it based on my own observation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.207.198.148 (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read: WP:Biographies of living persons. Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I COULD'nt GET YOU, WHAT YOU SAID. ACTUALLY I WANT SOME ARTICLES OR PAGES WHATEVER YOU CONSIDER ON "HEPATOPROTECTIVE ACTIVITY OF Tribulus terrestris ON RAT..." PLEASE HELP ME ON THIS. THANK YOU!!--SSDEPB (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I left you a message on your talk page about a redirect that you had created. A redirect is a page which has no content itself, but sends the reader to another article from an alternative title. In this case, there was no other article and the redirect pointed back to itself. This is not useful, so the page was deleted by an administrator. Are you saying that you want somebody to create an article about this subject? If so, you can find more information at WP:Requested articles. It would be helpful if you could provide some references from reliable sources. The subject you mention does seem to be rather obscure, as evidenced by zero hits on a Google search. – Wdchk (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I have just noticed your message.

I think this is a mistake, I certainly did not edit any content recently, in any case I do have an account and if I had edited anything it would have been whilst I was logged in.

The IP address is a shared one from my ISP's pool, but without backtracking through the router logs I can't tell if it was in use from here at the time of this incident.

Kind regards

Ria — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.188.58 (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. There is no mistake. As recorded in the page history, someone made this edit from 2.30.188.58 without leaving an edit summary. However, it's no big deal – someone later made the same edit from 2.30.189.199 with an explanation, which is fair enough. – Wdchk (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I can see that you added { {R from alternative language|la} } to a couple of the redirects I made from nomina anatomica terms to anatomical articles, such as nodi lymphoidei brachiales. First of all: Thank you. Second: How importent are these tags, what is their function? I ask since I made 2000+ of these redirects. If these are importent these should be added and I should find a "semi-automated" way to do so. Third: Since you are the only one who ever added such a tag to my redirects I will ask you: Wouldn´t it be better is a seperate tag was made for medical synonyms since there are maybe 10000 more than I and others already made. If a separated tag was created it would allow wikidoc ect. and non-wiki sites/datebases (present and future) to pull these redirect directly (I think it would be easier). Again I am only asking you since you are the only one who added such tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakobSteenberg (talk • contribs) 22:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The purpose of the template is to place the redirect in a category. Some people, including me, think this is useful because it explains why the redirect exists, and this may not be obvious to other editors. I'm sure you could find editors who don't see the value in categorizing redirects, but in doing so I am following WP:RCAT: "There are ... maintenance categories specifically for redirects, and most should be in one of those." The redirect works perfectly well whether or not it is categorized. The categorization is for the benefit of editors, rather than readers.

This is an activity I don't spend a lot of time on; normally I add redirect category (Rcat) templates when editing the redirect for another reason. In the case of the anatomical terms you refer to, I categorized one of them while fixing a broken redirect. Then I saw a few others that started "nodi lymphoidei" so I thought I might as well categorize those too, in a spirit of improving the encyclopedia a bit at a time. Of the available existing Rcats, {{R from alternative language|la}} seemed to be the best fit, and the resulting Category:Redirects from Latin language terms an accurate description. I agree with you that a specific Rcat for medical synonyms might be useful in order to tell the whole story about the redirect. A medical synonym Rcat could be used in addition to the language Rcat. If we're to proceed with this idea, a next step could be to ask for comments at WikiProject Redirect.

You also make an interesting point about the number of redirects that could potentially be affected. I wondered how many there were! HotCat could help. It's also conceivable that a bot could be used to tag them. – Wdchk (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

First, thank you for taking the time to respond. Okay I haven´t seen that the "1a" language you added was Latin. In my first glance I saw it as a category for all redirects made on the basis of foreging languages (That German, Chinese, Latin and so on was in the same group).

I will try to bring the question of a "A medical synonym Rcat" on to both the "WikiProject Redirect"-community and to the "WikiProject Anatomy"-community.

In the mean time I will contenue with the redirect if I get the time (not likely). Then when the "medical synonym Rcat"-thing is resolved I will either add those or both the "medical synonym" and the "R from alternative language" depending on the outcome.

But using HotCat would take close to forever, and I think the job may be a bit tricky for a bot, but I know there are some browser-tools for such "fabric-jobs". I will have a look at it and one way or the other categories my redirects (but not my highest priority). Again, thanks for you comment and happy holydays if you are celebrating within the next couple of days. JakobSteenberg (talk) 10:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Moved to User talk:عبد المؤمن § Template:Lang-x/doc

 – – Wdchk (talk) 01:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to add the interwiki for the widely used latin language template on the Arabic wikipedia, but that page is locked for editing. Yes it is a template (قالب) --عبد المؤمن (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies, I'm sorta new to this so I didn't know how to put citations. haha. Here is where I got the news from.

http://www.allkpop.com/2013/01/oh-yeon-seo-and-lee-jang-woo-are-dating-in-real-life

It was just announced official an hour ago, so i decided to help out and put it out on her wikipedia and her bfs. If you can help put it on citations that'll be good since I don't know how haha sorry. thanks for msging me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abui91 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It is Mznuma you contact. Thank you for pointing out.Was pointed out, I was correct.Thank you very much.--Mznuma (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops! Fixed; thanks for letting me know. Graham87 12:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Such a shame.... I worked on those about 3 hours and you reversed them in a matter of seconds. I would have hoped you at least read over them to see the extent of the flaws in this page I was drawing attention to. Ah, no biggie... soon enough this page will be rendered irrelevant and it won't matter in the least to anyone that knows the least bit about the subject. Anywho, cheers.  :) Borealdreams (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Moved to User talk:70.127.158.147 § I got your message.

 – – Wdchk (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I believe there might have been a mistake. I do not edit Wiki pages. If it was edited, then it must have been by mistake. Could you please give me a link to the removed content? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.158.147 (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The term "sexist" does not appear in the username policy. According to the policy, a username might not be permitted if it were "disruptive or offensive". While respecting Viriditas' opinion, honestly, I don't think many editors would find this username to be disruptive or offensive.

If a user perceived a user name as sexist, then that user name would fall under the category as offensive. If I were a woman, I might be offended that someone was using Wikipedia to refer to women as "baby cakes" in a manner intended to solicit sexual favors. I'm surprised you don't agree. Viriditas (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. The point that you and the IP are missing is that even though the "preferred" way is to use the exact wording of the article name in the wiki link, it's NOT a dogmatic rule, and a VARIATION in piping CAN be done also. And HAS been done many times, in many articles, with many article names, with no problem. So why raise such a weird fuss about a correct variation in the wiki link? It makes no real sense, and most editors don't get this way over something like this. And to always undo it is simply because of "I don't like" reasons. Meaning, technically, reverting what I did all the time has no actual WP justification. You're falling into the same uptight trap that the IP user has been. It does NOT matter really that the article name is "Mosaic Covenant" IF "Mosaic Law Covenant" is ALSO STANDARD USAGE AND ACCURATE...and arguably more clear, per context of paragraph. And to repeat, reverting that modification (accurate and correct) is against WP policy.

This is a WIKI. No one owns any article, and should not rudely and disrespectfully revert for "I don't like" reasons. Because there's no question that that's really what's up here.

There's no WP rule that says that all WP links have to be the exact wording as the WP article. Variations in link wording is done all the time, with no problem. Because also, it's your OPINION that "Mosaic Covenant" is "sufficient". Obviously, I'm saying it isn't, and so do other sources, that also have it worded as "Mosaic Law Covenant". I already stated the reasons, that PER PARAGRAPH and maybe extra clarity, why not? (And by the way, "Mosaic Covenant" is not necessarily the most widely used anyway, depending. In many reference works etc, the more precise "Mosaic Law Covenant" is used.) What "justification" do you or the IP have to rudely undo an accurate and correct and clearer thing like that? ZERO.

Because WP does allow variations in wiki link wordings, all the time. "Preferred" or not. Again, it's undoing something for "I don't like reasons". And sorry, that IS what this is, after all is said done, is. And that's against WP policy.

If "Mosaic Law Covenant" is A) correct, B) also "standard", and C) sourced...then technically you or the IP have no business dissing the modification edit or reverting it. Period. That's the point. I mean, if "consensus" (which can ALWAYS BE STILL WRONG AND UPTIGHT ANYWAY), ends up having it that way, then whatever. Months later I might still change it, because this is not that a big deal or change. It's TRIVIAL, overall. And no need to have this much of a fuss from that IP user (or you). But for now, if "consensus" uptightly has it that way, then I'll let it go. (Consensus is not always right, just cuz it's the majority in a given time. Also, it's not like 30 editors are on here speaking about this. It's just you and that IP who are saying this.) Gabby Merger (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

This is related to a discussion about content at Council of Jerusalem. Just for the record, I have not reverted any edits to that article, rudely or otherwise. Other than that, I suggest we keep the content discussion in one place at the article's Talk page. Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 01:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello...just in case you didn't see it yet, I responded back to you on article talk page... Please take a look. (You misunderstood some of what I said...etc). Thanks. Gabby Merger (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hellmann’s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I put the template at the beginning because of a bug. —rybec 23:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, and I understand your concern. Please see my response to your post at Template talk:R unprintworthy. – Wdchk (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey Wdchk. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

jung so min is also model and one of the beUtiful women in korea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.19.81.245 (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

If Jung So-min is a model as well as an actress, for this to be included in the article you should cite a reliable, published source. As to being one of the most beautiful women in Korea: I'm not saying I disagree with you, I'm just saying that by Wikipedia's standards that statement is an opinion, and we have to avoid stating opinions as facts. For more information, please refer to WP:No original research and WP:Neutral point of view. – Wdchk (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You included a link in the see also section that suggested more information regarding the subject is included in that article. However, Baker's name is not in that article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Please could you chechk the reference formatting on these 3 pages

Gibside Baronet Conyers

Cheers and thanks Mike 5th Earl Orkney — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.10.139 (talk) 05:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi There, Please check references for - Gibside page and Family of Duchess of Cambridge page Thanks so much mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.138.209 (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

could you please check page "conyers baronets" is it OK cheers Mike (again!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.99.128 (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

At bugzilla:58316 I've made a proposal which, if implemented might make this page inaccessible.

Also, redirects of this sort are being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_9#.5Cx22Weird_Al.5Cx22_Yankovic. —rybec 23:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)