User talk:Us441/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Us441! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Bernstein2291 (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Put your messages here, but I will not respond here (I will at your talk page, if I do at all.) If I do not respond, know I read your message (unless I am on Wikibreak, then I will read when I come back.) If you put to answer on my talk page, I will.

Cite sources

Please cite sources when you add information to articles. For more information, see WP:CITE. Thanks! SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Benning Road

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Benning Road (Washington Metro). Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Medical Center

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Medical Center (Washington Metro), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Moves without consensus

Every time you have moved an article to include more services, it has been reverted. Please stop, and don't do it without discussing it first. --Golbez (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Promotional Material

Please stop. If you continue to add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Tampa, Florida, you will be blocked from editing. Flowanda | Talk 01:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

All of the above warnings were mistakes and not real vandalism. They were originally done in the standard-fror-vandalism month-by-month format, and I put each one in a seperate section. Us441(talk)(contribs) 20:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

GA nomination of Chicago 'L'

Hi! I noticed you nominated Chicago 'L' at WP:GAN. While the article has many of workings of a good article, there are several crucial elements that are short of the criteria, such as a short lead and an over-focus on future events compared to for instance rolling stock. The main shortcomming is that significant parts of the article, including most of the 'history' section, are unreferenced. The issue here is that as far as I can see, you have never contributed to the article; if there is to be any point in a review, someone must be motivated to follow up and correct those areas that need improving. I hope you understand, given the circumstances, why I am a little skeptical to the nomination. Presumably, all that will happen is that the article is on wait for up to a month or two, just to be failed. On the other hand, if improvements, such as a full-fledge referencing of the history section is done, I am more than happy to review the article and do a diligent review that will allow the article to pass. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Userbox

Hi, you left a question at Wikipedia talk:Userboxes#Userbox; I answered it pretty quickly, but I don't know if you've seen my reply yet. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have now added several userboxes.

Here's a hint on templates invoked (or transcluded) using the {{}} construct. For those which are held in the Template namespace, you don't need to specify Template:; thus, instead of {{Template:UserMandatorySignin}}, you only needed to put {{UserMandatorySignin}}; but it doesn't cause any trouble - it's just more code. However for those in other namespaces (such as User:), the namespace name is mandatory; so {{User:Feureau/UserBox/ProudWikipedian}} is correct.

Further information on transclusion is at WP:TRANS; info on namespaces in general is at WP:NS; info specific to the Template namespace is at WP:TMP. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss changes before making them

The Solar System article has undergone years of revision and has arrived at its current state through large consensus. If you feel that the article requires more work, please keep in mind that any issues you have have have probably already been discussed. Ask the page's main contributors before altering. Serendi^podous 22:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

VG Membership

Did you mean to place yourself as active or inactive? Unknown is for those that were found by a bot, but have not placed themselves under either. Since we will be cleaning out that list soon, please place yourself in the proper section. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Wuhu Island

The only problem is that Wuhu Island isn't developed enough as an entity in its own right in which it can be fully explored at the length of a standard article. Yes, Wikipedia is a source of information for everything, but there is a limit. I might be making a reference to the Pokémon Test, but you can see that not everything in existence makes for an article. All there is to know about Wuhu Island is that is the setting for three games, and there's nothing beyond than what's on the island. Trying to describe the features of this island would end up being more like Fancruft and Original Research. One could describe the sports that the island offers, but it's redundant when we already have Wii Sports Resort and so on to tell us. Take this article from Nintendo Wikia for example. This article describes nothing than what's on the island-- in fact, a whole section is nothing but speculation. Since there is little information available, people are tempted to stretch it out and make a whole article with diluted substance.

All I'm suggesting is that we wait on this subject. Wuhu Island is only a backdrop based on the information that is available, and an appropriate article would be but a stub. But if you can expand the article far beyond that it's in three games and what's on the island, then that's great.

And as a side note, don't say to me "I know you weren't trying to vandalize Wikipedia," which automatically tells me you're assuming that I have no idea what I'm doing, which is a little bit rude. Thanks. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course. So do I. But like I said, this isn't really going beyond talking about what's on the island, and would end up as Fancruft and Original Research. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Truth and Reconciliation Commission (South Korea)

Hi, could you explain to me why you undid the change i made? I removed part of the article that was copy\pasted (possibly in copyright violation) and you put it back. Thanks. Pintosaur (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please slow down while reverting

At Ministro Pistarini International Airport 186.136.134.12 (talk · contribs) made this edit making a mess of the page, please scroll down and look at it. 189.135.88.222 (talk · contribs) then restored the correct/standard version which Clubot reverted. 189.135.88.222 then fixed the page three more times with edit summaries only to be reverted by three different editors. While I realise that there is a lot of vandalism going on there still needs to be time to stop and see what a person is doing before you revert them. Thanks. something lame from CBW 09:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Central Park

The article has been reviewed and the review can be read here. I have placed it on hold until 3/1/2010 so that the issues may be addressed. WTF? (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The article has been on hold for two weeks now. How is progress coming along? I still notice a few specific items mentioned that remain. WTF? (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Archiving the Help Desk

Hi. I see you were trying to help out with archiving there. That's the most complex archiving system I've ever seen for a board on Wikipedia! Archives are added to individual days, not pasted into one. They are then transcluded into the monthly archive. See Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2010 July 27, for example. The day just archived is evidently transcluded to the help page, and the previous day's transclusion removed. Then the lists are added to Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/July 2010, with manual links to each question. I've corrected the archiving through that point, but the bot or somebody is going to have to do the individual links. Too time consuming. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Ken Jennings

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Talk:Ken Jennings has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. - EdoDodo ^talk 16:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I really was trying to make a constructive edit, but the problem was I was archiving, but I forgot to make the box linking to the archive. So I was going back to do that. When I got Edit Conflict. It is archived now, no worry.Us441 (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, no worries :). In future, please mention why you are removing content in the edit summary, so that it's clear to everyone why you're doing it. - EdoDodo ^talk 17:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Jeopardy set evolution

I deleted it per multiple WP:AFD discussions, where the consensus was to delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Your Dan Pawson article

Hi. I made an edit to the article you asked about at the help desk; you might like to look at it's talk/discussion page. Also, your user page displays all waggity in firefox and opera ( I didn't check internet explorer ); you might like to do something about that, and perhaps also to correct the "type-oh's" and garbled wording on the page, too. Hope you won't mind if I also mention that a significant percentage of article talk-pages, and almost all WP infrastructure pages that users can post to have their own automated archiving process. You always want to check that first before you attempt any manual (or automated) archiving because the settings by which any automated archiving process operates (e.g. how old threads have to be before they're archived, etc. ) have usually been negotiated by regular contributors to the article or talk-page or whatever. But perhaps you've discovered that already? In any case, good on you for wanting to help with the behind-the-scenes maintenance stuff; most users just ignore that. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the user page. Also, the lack of references was because the article was mostly sourced from J! Archive, but a small part was referenced from Jeopardy.com's Hall of fame, so I guess I could add that. Also, the reason I did not add the "Living People" category was that even though I was 99% sure he was still alive, I have no proof that he isn't dead. Us441 (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Which I have now added. Us441 (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review in progress on Appalachian Trail

Wanted to let you know that I'm working on the GA review of Appalachian Trail. While I'm not finished with the review, there are some small details surfacing already that are going to lead to it being "on hold". I'm really hopeful these can be addressed quickly so that the nomination passes. Triona (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Chuck Forrest

Hello! Your submission of Chuck Forrest 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! Orlady (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Your rollback request

Hi, I removed your rollback request from WP:PERM/R as malformed, but if you re-submit it by following the instructions in the editnotice or clicking "add request" at the top of the page, it will be considered. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Careful when reverting

Hi, you were reintroducing vandalism with this edit. Try and be a bit more careful in future. the wub "?!" 11:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Why did you warn me in error and then reverted your error without a note? You should have said something. -- Joel M. Chat ✐ 16:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 11:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment

An article that you have been involved in editing, Mount Greylock has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments here . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. (Notified you because you were the original reviewer, and though you would want to take part of this.) _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 04:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Chuck Forrest

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Your comment

Hello. You have a new message at 72.145.3.140's talk page.

I was just coming to say this. GW, you beat me to the punch at everything! ;) MJ₉₄ 22:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

My ranking

Thanks for fixing my ranking on my userpage. I guess I dropped about 20 spots while I was gone. Useight (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jeopardy!

The article Jeopardy! you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Jeopardy! for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Trying to divide into categories

I was trying to divide them into categories if you look at my edits if you hadn't interrupted al a typical GI Joe character article like Storm Shadow (G.I. Joe) because it the article I feel need reorganising. 82.25.105.18 (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger Craig

Brad Rutter has won over 3 million, when you consider all of his appearances: [1] Do you mean to say that Roger Craig is third all time in "regular season" (non-tournament) earnings? Zagalejo^^^ 19:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, well that seems plausible. Zagalejo^^^ 23:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Robert Enke

You have to believe me. Rosenthal88 (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: article has been full-protected for 6 hours. Airplaneman ✈ 22:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that.

Considering who it was from and what he's currently doing, I just assumed it was vandalism. I've already reported him, so he's circling the drain anyway. HalfShadow 22:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It was not. Us441(talk)(contribs) 22:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, just don't even give him the benefit; he's taking the piss. HalfShadow 22:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I want that message to be there. Us441(talk)(contribs) 22:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

About what was removed from Super Jeopardy!, vital as it is, it is also trivial, and is not needed. Only the results of the finals were needed. WikiLubber (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Dan Pawson for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Dan Pawson, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Pawson until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Mark Lowenthal for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Mark Lowenthal, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Lowenthal until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Chuck Forrest for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Chuck Forrest, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Forrest until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Jeopardy! Kids Week

You previously participated in an AFD discussion regarding a child article of Jeopardy!. There is currently another ongoing AFD for Jeopardy! Kids Week and you may be interested in providing a comment or vote for/against deletion. If you'd like to participate you can find the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Kids Week. Sottolacqua (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)