This is an archive of past discussions about User:Smallman12q. 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.
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there. I tagged your recent article, Absolute property for speedy deletion, since you have replaced the contents requesting that it be deleted. I would also like to point out that a title for this does exist, however it is a redirect. It might be helpful if you edit your information into the Poverty article, and provide a reputable source. Thank you - Until It Sleeps 02:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey thankyou. Im trying to figure out how to cite my source according to wikipedia's citing format.=D (This is my first content upload to wikipedia.) Cheers. Smallman12q (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'll try and figure out what's expected as I go along. I'm gonna log off shortly. Thanks again. I've seen some moderators be rather rude in the past...but you're a polite helpful person=D.Smallman12q (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Averting
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I have nominated Averting, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Averting. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Graymornings(talk)17:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
A tag has been placed on Bilateral requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article consists of a dictionary definition or other article that has been transwikied to another project and the author information recorded.
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 they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. ²wenty³ (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I wanted to inform you of the Adopt a user program Wikipedia runs for new editors. I'm currently being adopted and so far it has helped me considerably in writing articles and editing them. Whoever adopts you might just give you the start your looking for (and I garuntee, someone will adopt you! :D
3. You can request a mentor to help explain all of the complex rules that editors use to get a page deleted: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond to you before responding on the article for deletion page.
4. When trying to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. Don't let these acronyms intimidate you. Here is a list of acronyms you can use yourself: WP:Deletion debate acronyms which may support the page you created being kept.
Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Smallman12q, I'm Terrakyte. If you're still interested in being adopted, I would like to offer myself to be an adopter. I have been a member of Wikipedia since mid-November 2008, though I edited anonmously before then since about mid-2007. With regards to my credentials, I have been involved in WP:AFD, WP:DYK, Special:Newpages, WP:CFD, and I was heavily involved in bringing 4 articles to WP:DYK, and I did major work in bringing Mieczysław Jagielski to Good article status. If you do not wish me to be your adopter, please don't hesitate to say so. You can respond to my offer either on this talk page, or my talk page. Hope to speak to you soon. Terrakyte (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for accepting my offer. I hope you and I can get along great together. What I will do is check every edit you make to see if you are doing anything which doesn't fit with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you do, I will explain to you why such an edit can be improved. Please do not think that I'll be waiting to pounce on you for a mistake, I know my description of what I plan to do might give that impression. On the contrary, I would like our working relationship to be quite informal. Please feel free to ask me any question you want to anytime. I strongly advise you to read up, if you haven't done so already, on WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. These three hyperlinks direct you to Wikipedia's three core policies. If you know nothing else of Wikipedia guidelines and policies, you should know these three policies. Other things I would like you to read up on are WP:N and WP:CIVIL. There are many other Wikipedia policies and guidelines beside the ones I have pointed out, and you will probably come across them at some point during your Wikipedia editing career, though I will note any ones which I think are particularly relevant to edits you are making. Please never hesitate to ask for help from me if you feel that you facing a controversial decision. I hope none of what I have said has made you any less inclined to experiment around Wikipedia; just go out and contribute your bit to making this encyclopedia better. The best weapon you can have in doing that is pure common sense. I would like to say one big piece of advice; most people who edit Wikipedia are people who want to be constructive and co-operative, unfortunately there are a few people who aren't like that. If you find yourself at the other end of someone else's rudeness, please do not retaliate. The best thing you can do is continue following Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and allow an uninvolved editor like me, for example, to address the situation. In response to comments you made on my talk page, no problem about the fact that you're not on for hours on end during the day, and I'll forgive you for being American. ;) I also only speak English as well, so we're in the same boat. :) On a final note, you said that you hope you'll find Wikipedia interesting. I guarantee, if nothing else, that this place is never boring. Thanks for reading. Terrakyte (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Awesome=D. I get my own private reviewer. ^.^ I have taken a look at the policies, and they seem fairly straightfoward. I'll post questions to your talkpage for now.=DSmallman12q (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
In response to "I'm not quite sure where to post questions", I think the best place would be my talk page, as you have said. I'm afraid I don't have an answer atm concerning your watchlist question. I will ask around, and do some research, and hopefully I can get back to you on that one soon. As for the article you have suggested, we will need to find evidence that the US Air Force Web Posting Response Assessment has received "significant coverage in reliablesecondary sources that are independent of the subject", otherwise the article may be deleted per WP:Notability. Terrakyte (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I will try and find more info on that article. I thought it would be important because it represents air force guidlines.
Questions
I have found an alternative wiki link for an article I want to improve on wikipedia absolute advantage and I found a different wiki that has the same article abosolute advantage on economypedia. Am I allowed to copy paste content from that wiki to wikipedia?
I would still like to know what the (posted from Recent changes -62 and +50 mean.
In what order should citations, references, external links, see also, and notes appear sections appear?
What is the size of the english wikipedia in bytes? This chart doesn't show it past 2006 wikipedia chart.
How do I request protection for a page? (I've looked at the policies and they are very confusing and don't tell me what to do=( and so I thought I'd ask you). I would like to have the Federal Reserve System semi-protected. I believe it meets or exceeds the vandalism requirements (the irony!). Thanks again for all your help!Smallman12q (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
How do I properly use this template? (How do I subsitute the text?)
I am pretty sure you can copy text from one wiki to another.
-62 means 62 bytes have been removed from said article, and +50 bytes means 50 bytes have been added. Credit must go to User:Piotrus for the answer.
From top to bottom: Citations, then references, then external links. Generally, the "see also" section is discouraged from being used on a Wikipedia article, since additional Wikilinks that are usually placed in the see also section should be integrated with the main body of text in the article itself. For more info on how it is advised to structure an article, you can take a look at WP:MOS.
I'm afraid I don't know, though I will inquire with an admin.
Thank you for saying thank you for my help. Thank you for being very co-operative, friendly, hard-working, and open; it is my pleasure to be your adopter. Terrakyte (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting How many hits does Wikipedia get per day?, 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 hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Edit reviews
Latest comment: 15 years ago13 comments2 people in discussion
I thought I should create a separate section on this talk page for my hopefully daily reviews of your daily edits.
I have reviewed your edits since the time I said I planned to do such a thing, up until around 01:00 GMT today, and I am impressed that you are citing correctly. I am impressed because many people who are relatively new members of Wikipedia often make controversial edits without backing them up with citations from reliable sources. On that note, I would like to offer another piece of advice; cite liberally. WP:Citing sources says, in a nutshell, that you only need to cite controversial information. I personally cite almost everything I add, just to be on the safe side. The preceding sentence does document my own personal belief; as I said, you only need to cite controversial information, but I think it is better to cite more than less. You seem to me to have acted very well in discussions you have contributed to, great work. I only have one big concern, which regards Standards for Security Categorization of Federal Information and Information Systems. First of all, did you copy the text in the article from the source listed? Secondly, the reference isn't properly formated, I'm afraid. I will properly format it, and I will provide you with a diff to show how I did it, though could you please tell me which page of the source you either copied the text in the article from, or what page you got the ideas for the text in the article from. Thanks in advance, I want to know because I can properly format the reference then. Thirdly, please explain jargon. What I mean by that is, there are dumb people like me who might read this article, and not understand what FIPS or NIST mean. That can be solved by wikilinking the terms, or if an article doesn't exist to explain, by explaining on the article. In general, an article on a specialist subject should be watered-down in its language to suit people who only have a basic knowledge of the subject at hand. All in all, I am happy with the edits you have made. Keep up the great work.
With regards to the fips article, I didn't have the time to "work it out" so I just thought somethig is better than nothing. Is there some time of "I'm working on it" template? I will however try and expand the article today. Oh and I do try and cite all my sources...its something I learned from a college professor who literally had no life and went and checked everything.Smallman12q (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Lol, I had a teacher like that as well. If you are thinking of positing another article again, but you feel that you still have quite a bit of work left for to do, may I recommend User:Smallman12q/Sandbox. Once you click the "create this page" link, you have access to your own private work-area for you to develop an article to what you feel is completion, before then transferring the code of that article (everything in the edit box when you hit the edit button on the sandbox) into a proper article on Wikipedia. The advantages of doing this includes the fact that whilst the article is being developed in the sandbox, it is generally free from the threat of being deleted, having templates added to it by someone else e.t.c, and you can have all the time to work on the article (whereas you might be pressured to improve a proper Wikipedia article in time before it gets deleted). Check out my sandbox to see an article I'm working on, to see what I mean: User:Terrakyte/Sandbox. As for the template you wished for, there is this one: Template:Underconstruction. For a list of practically every Wikipedia template I imagine you could want: Wikipedia:Template message. Terrakyte (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
P.S. With regards to when we finish the adoption, I thought I could let you know when I feel you have learnt the essentials of Wikipedia, and then recommend that you don't need the eyes of a mentor anymore. Of course, you can always decide yourself if you feel you don't need an adopter anymore. Whatever happens, I am sure I will be around after I am no longer your adopter to help out with any issue you have. Terrakyte (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
That won't be for a while...maybe a month or so. Could you tell me how to create a new page that I would get those "You have a new message" warning? I want to be able to know when you add something.=DSmallman12q (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't have much time today...but I'll add a few articles on the weekend.
No probs regarding when you want to finish the adoption. Unfortunately, the only page that will result in the "You have a new message" warning when info is added to that page, is your talk page. Terrakyte (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey again. Second review. [1] You added a source which I do not believe is reliable. I think this because this website seems to me to have an agenda to see Bush impeached, and might distort facts to further their argument. Wikipedia:Reliable sources says that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." [2] I understand your point that since the article has been "been nominated three times before, and always failed", that the AFD should be closed. However, you shouldn't be dismissive of an AFD just because the article was nominated several times before, and failed. New evidence could have come to light since the last AFD, supporting the argument that the article should be deleted. I remember one article that was nominated 6 times for deletion. It was deleted on the 6th, which I believe shows that just because an article has been nominated for deletion before doesn't mean it won't be deleted eventually on good grounds. [3] With regards to "How about if someone was to nominate List_of_Irish_companies for Afd? Clearly the article has been maintained", please take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I agree with User:Timneu22 below; generally you should never alter someone else's text in a discussion. I hope I haven't come across as harsh for all of what I have said before; you have done good work since my last review, such as when you added a category to Miscellaneous solo piano compositions (Rachmaninoff). I would like to offer another piece of advice. It isn't relevant to any edit you have made, but you should keep it in mind. In a discussion, avoid a combative tone. Combative tones tend to put a lot of people off your arguments (no matter how valid they may be), they can provoke other editors to be aggressive towards you, which can often negatively affect the working environment of discussions, and you might find it harder to advance in Wikipedia because a reputation may develop concerning the combative tones, amongst other negative side-effects. On a lighter note, I would like to point out WP:DYK. Perhaps you might be interested in doing an article for WP:DYK. If you are, I will be more than happy to help out. Terrakyte (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
No worries..."its all good as" they say. I'm noticing that wikiepdia really pushes for that notability thing. Perhaps there could be a template that says..."This article's notability is contested. Please help prove its value."=D I'm going to add a few economic related changes.Smallman12q (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for being ok with the review. I agree that Wikipedia does push notability. If Wikipedia didn't have any notability guidelines, the encyclopedia could find itself keeping articles on someone's pet goldfish, which I don't would be good because it would probably harm the encyclopedia's assertion that it is a serious collection of information. There is a template fortunately like the one you have wished for: Template:Notability. Terrakyte (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
[4]: I understand why you added this type of FAQ; unfortunately, Wikipedia FAQs on talk pages are very ambiguous as to what should be put in them sometimes. Generally, though, FAQs on talk pages are meant to address questions regarding the development of the article itself, as opposed to the subject of the article. I suggest taking a look at the talk page of the Barack Obama article, and looking at the FAQs there to get an idea of what an FAQs section should usually look like. I wanted to say well done for adding various templates to talk pages and articles; I say this especially because most people do not do this often as they feel the task can be quite monotonous. On another quick point, in this edit: [5], you said "Perhaps there should be a section for criticism?". In answer to that, I would like to quote the standard response to a query about whether an article should have a criticism section: "a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per WP:CRIT." [6]: Very good conclusion you stated; the article is indeed too long as per WP:SIZE. [7]: The policy you couldn't remember might be WP:WEASEL. All in all, great work; you've cited lots of info, added lots of correct templates, made many correct assertions. For your valued contributions thus far, I award you this:
The Original Barnstar
For numerous instances of adding citations to reliable sources to info that was not your own, as well as doing the arguably more monotonous job of talk page maintenance and template posting. Terrakyte (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow thanks...my first barnstart=D I'll do some more edits tommorow. Ye, I've noticed that there are no bots putting up templates=(. Thanks again for answering my questions.=D Still curious on the actual size of wikipedia...just something I'd like to know...maybe a chart or something to see the growth. Also, thanks for the policy links...I'm not a big fan of policies/guidlines myself=P.Smallman12q (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. I hope you will receive many more barnstars in the future. There are some bots that put up some templates, but not all unfortunately, mostly because sometimes when to put a template up is subjective to a degree beyond what a bot can compute. Policies/guidelines can be a b**ch sometimes, but they're there for a good purpose; to promote order in an encyclopedia which always has the potential to fall into anarchy. I will continue trying to find out how many bytes Wikipedia occupies, and I will see about a chart (I remember seeing one, but for the life of me I can't remember where). I'm afraid I don't have the time to do a review until tomorrow; don't get up to any trouble before then. :) Terrakyte (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
While I disagree with your "strong keep", I thank you for participating in the deletion discussion. However, I am writing to you to make a comment: you should not edit the deletion nomination comments, as you did here. The nomination for an article's deletion is what people discuss below. You should not ever add information to the original nomination.
As for this article and all the sub articles, there is no doubt in my mind that they all must be deleted as soon as the information is moved to relevant articles and categories, as the nomination proposes. I have already started by adding some categories and articles. Perhaps you would like to help? Timneu22 (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I would indeed like to help. And thankyou for pointing it out that I shouldn't edit the actual nomination content. My apologies. I'm still fairly new. My main argument is that you shouldn't delete that article until a replacement is up. Once a replacement is up, then you would have my support to delete the original article.Smallman12q (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The website you referenced is something that just gathers information from Wikipedia. There is already a plan in place for the solo piano articles on WP. We just need to follow it. Timneu22 (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Category:Articles needing additional references from Jaunuary 2009
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Heya.
On the talk page of this category, you asked "Why is this a red link". I imagine it is a red link because January is not spelled correctly. The correct category can be found here: [9]. Hope this clears things up. Terrakyte (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Lol; it's no problem. :) I've made mistakes like that as well. Since the talk page does not have a corresponding subject page, and because of the spelling error a subject page will not come about, I have tagged the talk page for speedy deletion under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G8. Terrakyte (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I have a question...how do you correct a spelling mistake in a template?t? It reads
It has been suggested that some sections of this page be split into a new page entitled [[{{{1}}}]].
It should probaly say "It has been suggested that some sections of this page should be split into new page(s) entitled [[{{{1}}}]]." Or maybe something else...but it sounds akward the way it is. Smallman12q (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
You can change the wording of the template by editing the Template:Splitsections page. However, I strongly advise against you making a change without consensus beforehand, because your change could prove controversial. I suggest you start a discussion on the talk page of that template, in which you propose your idea, and then people will hopefully contribute to it and a consensus can be achieved. Terrakyte (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Terrakyte
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I am a collegue of Terrakyte who is currently having some technical troubles involving IPs. Hopefully this will be sorted in a few hours, but he wanted me to tell you that he may be not on Wikipedia for a little while and apologizes for any trouble this may case to you. I will be happy to help you until he returns, just post questions to my talkpage. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Terrakyte is by far the most intuitive mentor I have seen. He even warns me when he's not gonna be on!=D Terrakyte...you work too hard. Thanks for the notice though=DSmallman12q (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
My apologies, I wasn't aware of how severe the problem was. I thought that having three admins support his unblock would be enough. I do hope that this gets resolved and Terrakyte can spend his time more usefully contributing to wikipedia rather than facing an arbitration board.
Re:Terrakyte's Adoptee
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Okay. Will see how it plays out. I'm happy to see that terrakyte is back. Thankyou again for helping.
New review
Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hey Smallman12q
I have been unblocked; thank you very much for your support. If you would still like me to be your adopter, it would be my pleasure. In the meantime, I completed a review whilst I was blocked (regarding edits between 00:00 GMT 26 January, to 14:00 GMT January 28):
[10]: In a citation, the author should only be wikilinked if an article on that person exists already ([11]). [12]: I don’t believe the article is yet at B-class quality. Please don’t take that as a slur, the page is welcome. It’s just that the article isn’t developed enough; see WP:ACCESS. [13]: The best place to apply for semi-protection is WP:RFP. [14]: Remember to sign each warning you issue.
Apart from these little things, great work. Excellent referenced info, and great talk page work.
I would still like for you to be my adopter. You are very responsive and easy to work with. ^.^. Ye, my economics book is very useful. I have a pile of these books I happened to keep from college and kept them in a box which I recently opened(hehe). In fact, they're what brought me to wikipedia...I was simply wondering if wikipedia has as good information and it appears there is much work to be done.=DSmallman12q (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm pleased you still want me to be your adopter, and thank you for your compliments. Wikipedia is very much a work in progress. As for keeping those books out of college, tut-tut. :)
Thank you very much for your barnstar; much appreciated. Thanks again. :) Just a quicky, the arbitration committee didn't get involved in the situation. Terrakyte (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Next review:
[15]: If you come across a user who has just been given the lowest-level standard warning for nonconstructive edit(s), please consider issuing a higher-level warning as opposed to the same-level warning as the one just before. However, you should be careful when issuing warnings to IP addresses who have received high-level warnings before, but received them quite a while back, because the IP address could have been re-assigned to another person after the high-level warnings were issued, and thus low-level warnings are generally warranted again. Also, if a proper editor received high-level warnings quite a while back, and started vandalism again but didn't receive any warnings between the high-level warnings and his new bout of vandalism, then generally you should think about a mid-level warning. Of course, each situation should be judged by a case-by-case basis. I know a lot of what I have said has little directly to do with the diff I have highlighted, but I thought now would have been a good opportunity to talk about issuing warnings. [16]: I am afraid I concur with this judgement; for semi-protection, there needed to be lots of recent vandalism by anon editors. Apart from that, excellent work; I'm beginning to think you don't need an adopter much longer. You've been working hard to combat vandalism; nice. :)
Ye, twinkle, friendly, and popups are very useful for combatting vandalism and editing in general. Should you ever have another adoptee you should consider suggesting this gadgets to them earlier. On the other hand, I plan to write a sockpuppet scanner...but that is for a future date. I will have a look at dyk, and ga soon. For now, I'm going to add some more stubs for economics and sociology. I also would am happy to hear you didn't have to go through the arbitration comitee.
My 1 question:
How to report IP sockpuppets
I have found that on Scottish_Knights_Templar&action=history, there is a range of ip sockpuppets in use to vandalize, revert, and undo changes. I have opened a sock puppet case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/86.136.176.9...but I do not know if this is the right approach. Could you please advise me on what to do? Thankyou.The report has been archived, but I have opened it as a quick case. Can you tell me if this is the right way to handle it? I also have opened a quick case at quickcase. Please let me know if this is the proper approach.Smallman12q (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, from what I know, CheckUser won't be of much good. CheckUser works by using an established account as a reference, and no such account exists for these IPs (at least that I know of). My best suggestion is that you go to WP:AIV, and complain about the IPs vandalism there. Terrakyte (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Retiring
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Smallman12q
I have thought long and hard about this, a clichéd remark but true. Though I have been unblocked, I am sure I will not be inclined to edit significantly with the stigma of having been blocked, not matter how wrong the block was, especially considering that I was unblocked on the basis of reasonable doubt as opposed to outright repudiation of the accusation that I was a sock-puppeteer. I am sorry, but I have decided to retire from Wikipedia. I am sure I will lack notable motivation for continuing to use the account, for a fear of the perception that some people may attain of me which may hamper my work for the encyclopedia. I am really sorry I have decided to cut this adoption short.
I believe you are on the road to becoming a very good Wikipedian; you are hard-working, co-operative, and eager. I wish you all the best, both for editing, and in RL. The best pieces of advice I feel I can give are; remember WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V always, always be civil (as I am sure you will be), and if in doubt remember common sense.
If in need, please think about going to User:Piotrus. Just as I have been a mentor for you, he has been a mentor for me. He knows his stuff, and he’s a good bloke.
I hope what has happened regarding me will not diminish your faith in Wikipedia; it hasn’t done so for me.
Terrakyte...nooo=(. Well I doubt I can say anything to change your mind...but I must say that you are by far the most intuitive mentor I've had and it will be a misfortune to lose you. Perhaps you can adopt me on a new account? On any count, you've been an excellent mentor and have helped introduce me to wikipedia. I will miss you and you're daily reviews. You were a very hard-working editor and it is a shame you got accused of sockpuppetry.=( Best of luck to you in the future and I do hope that you do come back someday. I'll be waiting. I will seek adoption from Piotrus or perhaps another mentor...but you have made my stay here very pleasent. I will miss you!Smallman12q (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Hi there! You may want to consider waiting for promotional appearing usernames to make edits in mainspace before reporting their usernames. While many may be quite obvious, it's always best to WP:AGF and wait for them to edit first. It's difficult for the admins to go through that many reports and have to filter out which ones have made edits that show the username is being used for promotional purposes, etc. Just a thought. Best regards. --Chasingsol(talk)04:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello - I've popped along in response to this thread on WP:AN where some people have raised concerns about some of the reports that you've been making to WP:UAA. Firstly I would like to second what Chasingsol says above - as the username policy clearly says, simply having a company, organisation, or website name as the name of your account is not a violation and does not merit blocking. Using that account to promote that company, organisation or website would justify a block, however. A number of the reports that you've made to WP:UAA have been for company names which you say "violate the username policy", but because the accounts haven't made any edits, then they're almost certainly not violations - just to pick a few at random there are User:EssenerEquipmentCo, User:JoeysAppleFoundation, User:KenneticProductions, User:DCSoftwareConsultants and User:DDSoftwareConsultants.
Secondly, some of your reports are just, well, bizarre. WP:AGF means that we should assume (not least because it's the most likely scenario) that the account named User:Tim_Warner is operated by someone called "Tim Warner", and isn't "possibly misleading because it's almost Time Warner", particularly when there are no edits. Why should an account named User:Jamie Pratt be blocked as "possible impersonation"...? User:Thomasdcunningham? User:Robbygay? What do you think is so disruptive about User:Citation Completely Disregarded? And what exactly is User:Molloyn09 impersonating?
Finally, some of them are just plain wrong. Why should User:Evolution professor be blocked for "pushing it"? You reported User:Earthmoves because it matched a website (www.earthmoves.co.uk). The two edits made by User:Earthmoves not only make it clear that they're not promoting www.earthmoves.co.uk, but also that they're in no way connected with it. User:Supasexxy is neither offensive nor disruptive. User:For the Love of Money is a "disruptive username - the name says it all"...? User:Oliverbutler matches a website at www.oliverbutler.com? I mean...come off it. A large number of usernames (my own included) will match websites, but that in no way means that they're promotional and warrant blocking. It's only when the edits support an assertion that the name is promotional that you should report it.
Don't get me wrong - in amongst your reports are some valid ones, and reporting spam accounts for blocking is useful work. But every incorrect report generates more work - all of the above accounts remain (rightly) unblocked, but each report takes up time in investigating and discounting it. It would be useful if you could take a little more time to read the username policy and understand it. It would also be sensible if you didn't use automated tools like Twinkle (as I see you are doing) because they're not a good replacement for actually thinking things through - doing things manually not only means that you'll get a better understanding of how Wikipedia works, but also means that you'll take a bit more time to think about each name, look into its contributions (if any) and actually think about whether or not it is a violation before pressing the button to list it on WP:UAA.
Any questions, feel free to leave me a message. I see that you've asked a couple of questions on the username policy which I'll answer on the appropriate page. GbT/c10:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
That's good, but please also take a bit more care with things like sockpuppet investigations. Don't just click on the Twinkle button to open a new report - take Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BobbyBot as an example. All three of the accounts were already indefinitely blocked before you created the report. As a result there's clearly no point in opening a report. GbT/c13:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
And User:Hell Mouth (Band) was already blocked a couple of hours ago. Again, please take more care and take more time - before just clicking on whatever button in Twinkle reports a name to WP:UAA check the block log and the talk page of the user concerned to make sure you're not reporting someone who's already been or is being dealt with. GbT/c13:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm too aggressive. I will instead work on adding a checking function to twinkle so that blocked users can't be reported. What is frustrating, however, is that some users who are blocked do not have a blocked warning on their userpage or talk page. And with regards to bobbybot...Well, I looked and at the time, bobbybot wasn't blocked...it appears he was blocked at
03:11, 31 January 2009 Versageek (Talk | contribs) blocked BobbyBot (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (declined bot account of indef blocked user)
and my report was made at 3:00.
I'm going to go back to making my economic stubs until I have a better understanding of what is accepted and what is not.=P Thankyou again for your advice.^.^Smallman12q (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I work on a project that tries to find orphaned articles and un-orphan them. An article is considered an orphan if three or fewer articles link to it. Your article Cash transfers doesn't yet link to any articles in Wikipedia and no articles in Wikipedia link to it, so Cash transfers is an orphan. We try to avoid this if possible because it makes it difficult to navigate around the encyclopedia if there are articles that are not connected.
In order to help me de-orphan your article, could you please add a little more text to it to explain what you mean. Are these payments charity, or government handouts, are they means tested, are they index linked and so on. Then if I can find something similar in, say, France, I can link Cash transfers to the French version and vice versa; you can use each other as examples of your article. Many thanks, Cottonshirt (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I will try and expand the article as you have shown interest in it. At the moment however, I am adding a number of economic stubs. When I have finished adding these stubs, I will go back and expand the articles.Smallman12q (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Template issues
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
My apologies...I forgot to subst the template and hence the edits to the actual template rather than to the intended userpage. Sorry for any disrubtion.Smallman12q (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Smallman12q, I have granted your account rollback in accordance with your request. Please remember that rollback is for reverting vandalism/spam, and that misuse of the tool, either by revert-warring with other users, or simply reverting edits you disagree with, can lead to it being removed. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari22:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Smallman12q. I've semi protected the above article for six months as a result of the case you submitted at WP:SPI. If you think any other Templar-related files should be protected, can you specify them? They should be articles that have had a lot of bad edits by IPs in the last 3 months. I looked at Battle of Dunbar (1296) but am not certain whether to include that one. You may have others to suggest. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello again. Can I have your permission to strike out all the registered accounts from this sock case? I think their inclusion must be a mistake. For example, User:Steve Zissou appears to know the material well and has made sensible comments in some Templar-related AfDs. It's really (in my opinion) a case of spamming and revert-warring by IPs that has stretched out over a long period. The IPs are the problem, not the registered accounts. . EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou for reviewing the case(finally=D). I believe that semi-protection for Battle of Dunbar (1296) would be nice...but I don't think its necessary. I was mainly aiming to protect the Scottish Knights Templar article. I put up the users because I thought that some of them may be in that edit/revert war. Anyways, I would like to thank you for looking at the case as its been up there for several days and I didn't know how to handle it.Smallman12q (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
84.9.144.107
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This IP has only made edits today. Since it is a dynamic IP address in a large pool, by the time the 48 hour block expires, the IP may well be assigned to a different person. This is the reason why we don't block this type of IP for long periods, unless they persistently vandalise over a long period of time. Black Kite16:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Re:Terrakyte Adoptee
Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
I hope we can convince T. to come back. Whether he does or not, I'll be happy to help, but you may want to consider asking questions like you are doing either at WP:VP or at Wikipedia-en channel on WP:IRC - both are likely to generate a quicker reply then if you wait for me. As far as I understand the username policy, the answers are all 4x"no", 1x"yes", don't know but check Category:User block templates, and finally, report that user at WP:ANI.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello Smallman. Another good place to ask for advice is WP:Editor assistance/Requests. I would note that WP:UAA is not such an easy place to help out, because of all the subtleties. Watching for plain vandalism, or patrolling new pages, leads to fewer puzzles for new editors. If you think that solving Conflict of Interest cases might be of interest, I could help you get started at WP:COIN. EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes a COIN case will lead to a WP:AFD discussion for an article. Consider going through the current items listed at WP:COIN to look for any AfDs that are still open, and see if you want to participate in any of those discussions. You will notice that some editors mention COI issues in their comments. After you've tried this, leave me a message. EdJohnston (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Notice that Oxymoron83 is an administrator. Wouldn't it be more logical to recommend that Oxymoron83 apply full protection to his user page? Then you could save the time of the checkusers. EdJohnston (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Sockpuppet tagging
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Smallman12q, I think you should have a closer look at some of the editors you tagged in this case. Some have quite some edits, many not relating to edits to User:Oxymoron83. I am afraid that many here have been falsely accused of sockpuppetry, which is not really nice... --Dirk BeetstraTC23:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The next time you file a mass-SPI without evidence that is patently absurd and run a near-bot like tool to hound the users you are wrongly accusing, I will block you for a week for disruption. MBisanztalk23:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Thanks for welcoming the new kids on the block. Since I'm new to this, I'm going to ask a really dumb question. When I post will it show my username? If so, is there anyway to mask it or change it to provide some anonymity. Or will I have to create a new user? Thanks!
(Alikuosullivan (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC))
Latest comment: 15 years ago13 comments7 people in discussion
Hello Smallman. I think you've gone off the deep end by accusing Kanonkas. He is one of the administrators who works on sock cases. I think you should avoid both WP:SPI and WP:UAA until you have more experience. I see that your account was created on 17 January. There is still time to pick up the advanced stuff. People will stop taking you seriously if you file frivolous cases. EdJohnston (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Smallman12q, no offense intended at all, but you really need to be careful using Twinkle and other automated tools. As far as I can tell, you just went though and tagged everyone who ever edited User talk:Oxymoron83—including people like the admins who blocked him! (ie, User:Kanonkas, who is certainly not a vandal). Politizertalk/contribs23:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
You may want to consider looking at WP:RBI and WP:Deny recognition, two guidelines on dealing with vandals. Most of these users and IPs who actually are vandals are clearly related to the indef-blocked User:Grawp, and in those cases they can just be reported to AIV and blocked on sight; the users can be indefblocked. There's no need to go to the trouble of formal investigations and such when it's just a matter of juvenile vandalism; the best policy is "revert, block, ignore." Politizertalk/contribs23:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, long story short, what I'm trying to say is, with most IP vandalism it's most appropriate just to get the individual IP blocked and not worry about it any more. Lots of stupid people vandalize from multiple IPs and there's usually very little we can do about it (since many are public IPs) other than give them temporary blocks (24 or 31 hours, usually) over and over again. Politizertalk/contribs00:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
No; as far as I can tell, most of those IPs are not editing right now. When it comes to IP vandals, AIV is only for reporting vandals that are currently active (since they can only do temporary blocks, and there's no point putting a 24-hour block on someone who hasn't edited in a month) and when it's urgently necessary to block them to prevent immediate damage to the encyclopedia (as per the blocking policy: blocks are preventative, not punitive). (and, a side note: AIV is also generally only for reporting vandals who have been appropriatedly warned.) With IPs like this, it's best just to forget about them for now, and deal with them if you happen to see them editing again. Politizertalk/contribs00:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
You'd be wasting your time. The IPs are all disparate and Grawp meatpuppets; they're 4chan users (specifically, their random board) and as such you're wasting your time - a lot of those IPs are dynamic, and it's a certainty that they're just following their shepherd's orders. As for the named accounts, please do yourself a favor and read into the history of each named account. Mass-SPI reports like the one I am very tempted to nuke as (unintentional or not) disruption requires massive amounts of legitimate evidence.
I will also ask you to please stay off of my talk page, as well as NawlinWiki's, until you recognize that these forms of SPI (based on every user who edited a talkpage during a 4chan attack) are ultimately more harm than help. -Jeremy(v^_^vDittobori)00:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I use two different aliases here on Wikipedia, icry96 and my IP address. I just happened not to be logged in when I made some edits, and all of my recent edits have been for the betterment of Wikipedia. Plus- the "evidence" on my page is a red link. I am taking off this sockpuppetry notice as I am not doing any harm to the community with simply using two different aliases. THANK YOU. --24.1.205.187 (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
You recently called me called me a sockpuppet as well. That's bull. I only have one account on Wikipedia, and I don't think I've made an edit either with that account or my IP in day, maybe weeks. I plan to take the notice off as well. What were you thinking, anyway? 69.122.118.155 (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I talked to that Acalamari guy about it and I think I get what happened (I'm the above IP address). I'm curious, though, what 4chan invasion did I manage to get caught up in somehow? >_> --Madfoot713 (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
re Vandal Warning Remover detector script
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Wouldn't but too much time into this, since people can blank or remove warnings from their talkpage at will, including anon users. --Terrillja talk02:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Is there a policy link for this? So I can't warn vandals of removing this month's warnings from their talkpage?Or blanking the talkpage?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallman12q (talk • contribs)
WP:BLANKING covers it. Only real exceptions are if they remove things like declined unblocks or for anon users removing the shared ip templates, or if they replace everything with things that are inappropriate or attack another editor.--Terrillja talk15:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
In response to your last addition, a welcoming bot, these have been proposed before and have been turned down many times. About the only exception is the ACC bot, which welcomes users that were created using a special tool. I've been around long enough to see the discussions over welcome bots, and consensus is that they are not desirable. FWIW, manual mass welcoming is also discouraged.--Terrillja talk15:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
1)
Hello, Smallman12q. You have new messages at Ioeth's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Hey there Smallman12q, I just wanted to let you know that I've removed everyone who you tagged as socks from the sock category, either by deleting pages or by rolling back your taggings. However, I also noticed this edit of yours to your userpage regarding what just happened: my response to that is that you don't beat yourself up over this or leave the project because of it. Instead, you should reflect, learn, and improve from the error, and become a better and more experienced editor and person for it. In the future, if you need help or aren't sure of something, don't hesitate to ask more experienced users. Best wishes. Acalamari01:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Well itll be a reminder for me.=D I have no intention of leaving yet as I'm mainly here to contribute articles rather than fight vandalism. I simply give vandalism reverting a try. Apparently, either its not my thing, or I simply haven't been here long enough. Thank you for your concern though. It's nice to see an admin who isn't threatening to ban me for a week ~.^ Smallman12q (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Seconding Acalamari's note. Take me for example: I've been here about 6 months, have over 15,000 edits, and some people even like me...but look at what I did back when I was first starting.
I think we all feel pretty cavalier when we're first starting out...as for me, I just hated vandalism and wanted to do everything I can to kick vandals in the ass as hard as I could. But with time I learned how things work around here and what the appropriate responses to vandalism are. So this incident isn't anything to beat yourself up over; it's just something that happened because you are a human being and, naturally, want to fight vandalism. Like you said, though, at least now you've learned more about responding to vandalism, and hopefully about being careful when using automated tools.
As for reverting vandalism being "not your thing"...what to do is pretty simple. If you see vandalism pop up in your watchlist or if you're patrolling new users and such, just undo it (an edit summary of "rvv" is acceptable), and warn the vandal at their talk page using one of the template warnings at WP:WARN (the most common are {{uw-vandalism1}}-4, {{uw-delete1}}-4, and {{uw-biog1}}-4), starting with a low level warning and working your way up with subsequent warnings. If the vandal makes a bad edit after having gotten a final warning (something like {{uw-vandalism4}} or 4im) and their edits are very recent (meaning it's possible that they're still online), you can report them at AIV...then they get blocked and you can forget about them.
From what I have seen, people tend to post an additional warning when a vandal removes the warning templates from their page. Thank you for pointing out the policy links =D. I'm still fairly new and thus don't fully know all of the policies (there are quite a few of them I see).Smallman12q (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
There's no need to notify editors who have been blocked for a better part of a year that you suspect them of sockpuppetry... It's just creating needless talk pages. –xeno (talk)21:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Please…
Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
Please stop tagging every /b/ troll as "suspected sockpuppet of JarlaxleArtemis". The vast majority of them have nothing whatsoever to do with him, and there is absolutely no point in tagging every open proxy as a "suspected sockpuppet". Just report the accounts to AIV, revert any vandalism, and ignore them. – iridescent21:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Especially when they're already blocked. You're just creating needless pages. Maybe find something more productive to do. –xeno (talk)21:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Neither of the two accounts you mention have anything whatsoever to do with JAA as far as I can see. Stop this. Please. I don't want to end up blocking you for disruption when you're acting in good faith but this is starting to get disruptive. – iridescent21:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Very well then...I simply found it odd that someone created an account to do two edits...one of which was blanking oxymoron's page.Smallman12q (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, the pattern I noticed was that people create accounts specifically to target oxymoron83's user and talk page. Well, you've been here longer than I have, so you know the policy better. Smallman12q (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Anyhow, whatever script it is you ran, please do not run it again. I've deleted most of the pages you unnecessarily created. –xeno (talk)21:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
What he said. Having wasted half an hour of my life cleaning up your mis-tagged "sockpuppets", if I see another bot running on your account – let alone a malfunctioning one like this – I will block you from editing Wikipedia. – iridescent22:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
thank you so much for the barnstar regarding the North Sea. Will soon go back, do a few more tweaks, and see if it can indeed be a good to go or not regarding the GA again. ... so close and yet so far... SriMesh | talk02:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
I'm gonna help expand that article. It seems very close to GA status.(It has quite a few references=P). It seems it just needs some copy edit work.Smallman12q (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello there, you raise a valid point about applying references and putting facts into articles. As I, personally, have not measured the North Sea, I must rely on a source. When I find a difference in between sources, I sometimes quote both in text, such as Jones says this and Smith says this with both citations following. Sometimes, I check to see which article seems more reliable in authors or their sources. In this case, I have used the MUMM article [17] other places in the text of the article myself. Place several sources and their findings on the talk page of the North Sea article and then perhaps from this a consensus can be reached on the width. If there can be no consensus the width measurement can be removed.SriMesh | talk03:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
If a consensus isn't reached, we could request review from an expert, or simply put both widths. I'm not sure whether no width is appropriate.Smallman12q (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Alternative movement
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Alternative movement, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
Just a definition--it does not look like there is much potential for expansion
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Agricultural society, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
Just a definition--it does not look like there is much potential for expansion
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Marginal product of labor, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
My apologies, I have changed it. I was simply a bit caught up and frustrated. Some editors here are simply fastidious. Please forgive my temerity. Smallman12q (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Seems like further tweaking might be called for, but I respect your decision to express yourself as you see fit. I think something along the lines of "::I don't agree the nom's reasoning. The article should be changed into a disambig page with a link to agrarian society. I also take issue with the statement that, "A society that uses plows and drafts animals in growing food." So, that would be every society in the world then?, because I don't think it's logical and I think it goes against WP:UCS and WP:CIV." Have fun. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
You've been here longer than I have, and you are right that I shouldn't get too caught up in the debate. It seems like a fair request.Smallman12q (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, we all get caught up in frustrations at times. I haven't had a chance to look through your contributions, but you might want to check out wp:new pages (I suggest expanding the list to 500 at the bottom of the page and then looking through all the newly submitted articles to find some that interest you. Make sure to add them to your watch list so you can keep up with changes. There are new users who have no idea how Wikipedia works and try to put things up and could use some help. There are also interesting subjects that you might not have considered but would enjoy working on. The other area that can sometimes be rewarding if you don't take the outcomes personally is wp:AfD where you can have a say in keeping, deleting, or otherwise managing articles that are tagged for deletion. But keep in mind that nothing is deleted forever (and deleted article can be moved to userspace and worked on there) and consensus changes from time to time. As a native New Yorker I'm familiar with the take the bull by the horns approach to conflict, but other than being exciting and rather bloody, the outcomes aren't usually great. I think collaborating is a lot more rewarding and fun. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Aside from my failed sockpuppet reports on User:Grawp, I believe I've contributed a bit to wikipedia. Currently I'm focused on expanding federal reserve articles. I'm currently working on Federal Reserve Branches. Apparently, wikipedia has almost nothing on the branches or the people on them...so I see I have a good hundred articles or so to create before I get bored. I have looked through new pages and I've also spoken to suggest a bot.(^.^) I'm still fairly new and while I may have some lot of articles, I still have a lot to learn. I am always happy to meet another agreeable fellow wikipedian. Cheers! Smallman12q (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Roger that, looks like you've got your work cut out for you. And from what I hear Bank of America, Citibank and some others are going to be "Federal" banks before too long... :o ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Your comment
Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Nothing, it's just that the user has the tendency to remove negative comments and keep the good ones. It's frustrating, but it doesn't break any rules I guess. Dengero (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I find it a bit odd that he hasn't logged on in months as seen in yet he logged on to remove my comment.(That was his only edit.) I'll simply assume that he's probably an active editor somewhere else. Still, I find it a bit rude that someone should simply remove my comment without any reply.Smallman12q (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
At least you didn't trash up a big POV conflict with him. But oh well, can't do anything, let him continue sitting on his soapbox. Dengero (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Well I mean its his userpage and other wikipedians clearly know who he is. And so I'll simply leave to others to debate with him. I'm mainly here to improve wikipedia. I left him a comment and he simply removed it, so in the future, if someone is interested, they will have seen his response beforehand. I try not to get too involved.Smallman12q (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
answering your question
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You asked a question on RFA. Some things that are not permitted are:
1. Blocking someone that asks to be blocked.
2. Blocking an IP that asks to be blocked.
3. Killing someone who asks to be killed.
4. Hitting your little brother because he asks to be hit.
Contino (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The questions are for the admin candidate. I don't see anything wrong with the question. Remember that RFA is a disscussion;hence everything is up for discussion(there are certain common sense restrictions nonetheless). If you see something wrong with my question, please let me know what it is.Smallman12q (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I notice some of your templates on your user page, and I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever to Wikipedia, you may find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia.
Welcome to Article Rescue Squadron Smallman12q/Archive 1, a dynamic list of articles needing to be rescued, which changes with new updates, can be found here:
Articles tagged for deletion and rescue
Category Articles tagged for deletion and rescue not found
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The Article Rescue Barnstar
The Rescue Barnstar is awarded to people who rescue articles from deletion.
This barnstar is awarded to Smallman12q, for his hard work in rescuing articles, making wikipedia a more detailed site, and helping editors to save their contributions. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Smallman12q. You have new messages at Ikip's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hand on vs. Rescue
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hang on is when the article has been set up for speedy deletion.
Rescue is for when the article is for an Article for deletion.
Since the article is up for a Article for deletion, I removed the hang on tag, and kept the rescue tag.
If I am not around, you can always type {{help}} followed by your question, and then someone will answer your question quite soon. Ikip (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Really nice job in tackling sourcing so many articles in jeprodary of being deleted. I am really impressed with you work. you deserve another barnstar. Ikip (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Well I try. Some of these deletions are pretty way out (and as I view it misinterpretations of the official policy). My main project is still getting the pictures on wikipedia changed. I have discovered that many of them are using excessive color tables and hence able to shrink another 20%.Smallman12q (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Activate your email
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
You userpage says you take picture requests. I am currently trying to cleanup and expand upon federal reserve articles. I would like to request a picture for the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (the current one is pretty bad). There website is http://www.bos.frb.org/ . Their address is
Federal Reserve Bank of Boston | (617) 973-3000
600 Atlantic Avenue | Boston, MA 02210
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 55882 | Boston, MA 02205
Hey, looks good. I tried some night-time shots and shots of the grounds, but none of them really came out nice enough to be publishable. -- Beland (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in the Accountancy Task Force
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
If you are interested in working in collaboration with Wikipedia members on improving the article Accountancy, you will be pleased to hear that the Accountancy task force has been set up and is seeking participants who can assist with the article's overhaul. Perhaps you would like to provide verifiable content on this subject matter, in which case your input could be invaluable. Alternatively we are also seeking participants who can help with the systematic sorting of related accountancy articles into meaningful categories, an activity that does not require undertaking research but will nonetheless help improve the quality of the article's links. Either way, the task force would like to hear from you!--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please see WP:NTEMP concerning your comment that, "she may be famous in the future". If you can add something to the provide notability, I suggest you comment on the AfD page. ttonyb1 (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Re your comment on the subject. I have to be careful what I write lest I be accused of canvassing. The User_talk:Hipocrite has an extreme bias against the subject, having nominated the AfD on Valentine´s Day, February 14. This bias becomes so obvious if you read the history. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Baltimore Branch Office
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Re message on my talk page:
Sure, I'll join. But I'm not sure how to sign up, nor go about my duties in the group. Can you help me get started? Shanem201 (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Gadaffibuilding in Lahore.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.
If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. §hepTalk22:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Transwiki to where?
Wikibooks?...Well you know I'm not quite sure actually. It just seems there is a lot of good content...and I contest the prod. Wikipedia is not a manual or FAQ, but the article isn't written as a manual. It needs a change of tone and to be wikified. Again, if you disagree feel free to open an afd for the article as a contested prod.Smallman12q (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Baltimore Branch Office at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Shubinator (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
