User talk:CAWylie/Archive 1

Thank you for feedback on "Jessica Meir" article

Thank you for your feedback on the "Jessica Meir" article, WylieCoyote. I have followed your advice, removing many of the blue links and one of the red links. I have been advised in the past to blue link words such as "sophomore", "undergraduate" and "thesis" because the concepts may not be familiar to readers from other cultures.

As I explained in the edit summary when I restored the "Master of Space Studies" link, the degree was still called that when Meir received it in 2000. The "International Space University" article previously had a red link for "Master of Space Studies" in its lead paragraph which had not been corrected to "Masters of Science in Space Studies". I changed that link and used a piped link in the "Jessica Meir" article, i.e. "[[Masters of Science in Space Studies|Master of Space Studies]]", to reflect the name of the degree when Meir received it while making sure it would link to a future article on the degree.

I think the other three red links are desirable. Wikipedia has long lacked an article on the National Undersea Research Center (NURC), and there were already red links for the Sylvan Heights Waterfowl Park in the "Aviary" and "Common Shelduck" articles. Adventurers and Scientists for Conservation sounds to me like an exciting new organization, and it's only a matter of time before it becomes definitively notable and has an article written about it.

Once again, thank you for your feedback and your praise for the article. It's much appreciated. Gildir (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Gildir, the red links are just a minor irritant so it should be okay to leave them, although expect someone in the future to mention/fix them. I also removed the "New Article" tag for you, since I, as a fellow editor, am able to do so, once it's been reviewed (I think.) We'll see if someone with higher power puts it back in. Also, you should leave the feedback request up if you value more than just my opinion. Again, it's a very well-informed, well-referenced, well-created article! — WylieCoyote (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and for removing the "New Article" tag. (My understanding also is that you were able to remove it.) I really appreciate the positive feedback. Once again, thanks! :-) Gildir (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Help with a character page?

Hi! I saw that you originally added the Vivian Harmon article and I just wanted to let you know that I created a page for all of the characters of the series. (List of American Horror Story characters) I figured that you'd be a huge help in fleshing out the character summaries. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Great job on the char page, Tokyogirl79! Yes, I began an article on Vivien but others wanted it deleted for not being notable. They felt it was too soon to have such a page or that this "main character" would be note-worthy in the series. I'm surprised that page is still around. I had planned to do a page with all of them but got into doing episode articles on Hell On Wheels. I will do what I can to fill out your character page and I sure others will help out too. — WylieCoyote (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Vivien Harmon (Connie Britton.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Vivien Harmon (Connie Britton.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Had to say thanks

Wow! What can I say. We are incredibly lucky to have you here. I saw your comment and was sad that you had your work deleted. Many people leave after that happens, but you stayed. Not only that, you've fixed up articles, made a bunch of new articles, helped other users and encouraged them. You've also learned a bunch of Wikipedia specific stuff (infoboxes, formatting, images) and you've done all that in less than a month. WOW! Like I said above, we are incredibly lucky to have you here. So I had to stop by and thank you kindly for all your help. It is very much appreciated. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank YOU, Hydroxonium, for the "bling!" While I was originally upset about my original article being deleted, I didn't fully understand the care people take in trying to keep Wikipedia concise. My original article was about a character from a TV show that wasn't even halfway through its first season. I approached the idea from the wrong end and should have went with a more global character sheet for all characters in the show, which somebody has done. If/when the show becomes more successful, then I will attempt the individual character articles. I must admit that I did walk away from Wiki for a while, but came back with a fresh new approach and outlook, within days. I realized that life's too short to take offense over trivial things like that. I hope to continue to add to and improve Wikipedia, while helping others do so as well. Thanks again for the star and the smiley! — WylieCoyote (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You are most welcome. I'm really glad you decided to come back. I think it's the harshness of deletion that bothers many people including myself. People spend hours of effort only to have their work wiped away. I think it would be much more cordial if we started by saying that we're sorry that we have to delete the article and give the person some time to copy it somewhere else before it's gone. But back to the main point, the community here is a much better place by having your help. Your efforts on articles, and more importantly, your efforts helping others are very constructive to the project. It's my opinion that an encouraging word to others helps even more than fixing a typo or adding an infobox as it builds the community and helps us grow. Thanks again for all your effort. All the best. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 05:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again! I agree that most people, who are new here, probably do not comprehend the workings of any article setup. Most established editors here should be willing to offer help, rather than whip out the "deletion broom," which is what I try to do, even on articles whose subjects I have no idea about. I add little things to their articles, then say "this might help your article," instead of smacking their hands and disposing of their hard work. But it's people like you (and a few others) who make this site more comfortable. Cheers! — WylieCoyote (talk) 05:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should be helping new users instead of zapping them. It's my biggest pet peeve. It's also the greatest concern of the Wikimedia Foundation that hosts all this stuff. I believe the foundation recently ran a survey trying to gather input on the problems faced by new users. Sometime in the near future, there will be a discussion about it. I'll stop by and give you the link so you can comment as I think your input would be very valuable. Cheers. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 02:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Like I said, if someone is considered an "Admin," they should be more lenient and flexible with newcomers, as the admins actions do reflect Wikipedia as a whole. If they don't want to take the time to coddle the newbies, they should at least provide links to the proper article setup processes or templates, rather than take the easy way out and flag/delete. — WylieCoyote (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely agree and I think it should be mandatory that admin's help new users as it's in the best interest of the project. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 02:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I added the VCA award to my Userboxers on my page. Thanks again! — WylieCoyote (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

File:HOWBread.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:HOWBread.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have to search for it, since I created it, and, yes, I WILL discuss it! — WylieCoyote (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi WylieCoyote. I've commented on this deletion discussion. Unfortunately, the image will probably be deleted. I'm terribly sorry that you had to go through this. We have perhaps a dozen or so people that aggressively enforce our rules and it often ends up driving away new users. I hope this wasn't too unpleasant for you. I'll comment below on our fair use rules. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 00:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair Use images

I don't particularly aggree with our fair use rules, but I understand why we have them. It is an area that generates a lot of heated debate on Wikipedia and I wish that wasn't the case. Anyhoo, we only have two categories of images that are safe from our fair use rules.

1. Images that are necessary for understanding - when the text of an article just doesn't convey the meaning properly, then an image is required. I can't think of an example off the top of my head, but I know these are very rare on Wikipedia.
2. Images that identify the subject - these are images that identify a subject and can almost be thought of as a form of advertisement. These are the most common on Wikipedia and would be things like; album covers for music, movie posters for movies and title screens showing the title of a TV show. Images of characters and objects (structures, vehicles, etc.) from TV shows are almost always deleted. Especially images that are recently uploaded, because they show up in the logs and people cruise the logs looking for things to zap.

The general rule is; if somebody can take a picture of it and give it away free or if somebody can draw a diagram of it and give it away free, then we won't allow a fair use version. This covers just about every image one could think of, so it means that probably 99% of the fair use images on Wikipedia will probably be deleted at some future date. Itr's sad that all that work gets deleted, but that's what the community has decided.

The other things people look for to delete are generic reasons used for fair use images. The rules state that each fair use rational should be written specifically for each individual image. This is another controversial area of Wikipedia because many fair use rationals will have very similar statements because the usage of them is the same. I've tried my absolute best at making good fair use rationals, but even I'm afraid that the images I've uploaded will be deleted at some point. in general, the more detailed a fair use rational is, the more likely it will be safe from deletion. You can see the files I've uploaded here and look through some of the rationals if you're interested. A lot of the text from those rationals are the same. I hope this helps, but I'm sure it doesn't relieve the sting of deletion. Kind regards. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 01:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If you are interested in why we have the very strict rules, you can read Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches, which is very long and boring, but tells all the details. All the best. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 01:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. I think they either need to do away with "screenshots" completely here or allow small low-pixel ones, which I thought they did. All of mine are 300 or below. Those that cannot be duplicated because of the low resolution should be allowed, even if they show "something that can be simply described in the plot." But like I said on the image discussion page, my hand hurts more from being smacked for using what I thought were acceptable images (simply because others were allowed theirs) rather than my articles being flagged for deletion. Those I can clean up and fix or find a better use for them, like the Character Page I had for a show that was only midway through the first season. Thanks again but I've grown tired of the issue. — WylieCoyote (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, it's images like this, that were allowed use, that bug me. It's obviously two screenshots put together by someone and used as one image and both images are obviously described perfectly in the article. Yes, I know I can't use that as an argument, but it is irritating that a well-known show like LOST wasn't scrutinized on here more. — WylieCoyote (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly. This is the biggest issue I have with our fair use policy. There are a lot of people who agree with us, but not enough to overturn the policy. I should also mention that now we talked about that image from LOST that it may very well be nominated for deletion. That's another thing that upsets me about the community. The people here can be very aggressive that way. Gotta go. Best regards. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Insightful comment

I'm sure you didn't realize how insightful your comment about the hammer was and that we have a few users here with hammer in their usernames. It reminds me of this essay written by Buster7. Buster is the person I most respect on the project as he truly understands the project and the problems facing it. Just thought I'd mention it so you'd know you weren't alone. Gotta run, best regards. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 02:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I came across that page once in "my youth." Funniest of all is: most of that page describes exactly what happened in the image discussion today. I think I used the hammer reference previously, as "ban hammer" or "delete hammer" and such. But yes, most times I feel like the nail at Wiki. Thanks for not making me feel like a small fish in a big ocean! — WylieCoyote (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• You are never alone here. There are more small fish than you might realize. Those big groupers just roam around looking for trouble. Don't mind them. There's more to do than what you first thought. Luckily User:Hydroxonium is in your "school"...and there is a big wiki to swim in. Happy editing Sir Wylie. TRA! Buster Seven Talk 07:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, you two. And I now have reserved the term "hammerhead fish" for myself! Muahaha! — WylieCoyote (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I have limited on-wiki time and yesterday I spent all of it on... yep, you guessed it... a fair use image I had uploaded some time ago. As you can see, we are now targeted because we spoke openly about the abuse that happens here. I'm really sorry about that. This means that everything we do will be scrutinized to the Nth degree and will likely mean our edits will be reverted, our images deleted and other general harassment. It will all be according to the rules though, and no policy will be violated by the aggressors except do not bite the newcomers, which is never enforced. It's likely to be a concerted effort involving several users tag teaming to enforce their point. I've seen it a hundred times before. This is Wikipedia's biggest problem and the Wikimedia Foundation is well aware of it and have been encouraging us to fix it. My only suggestion would be to not engage the aggressors as that only aggravates things. My experience has shown it's best to completely ignore them and thier aggressive actions. I'll keep an eye out for you and help where I can. Please leave me a note if you need anything. Again, I'm sorry you've been the recipient of so much aggression. I know all too well what it's like, so you're not alone. Best regards. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 02:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Hydrox, and yes, while it can be annoying and pesky being the object of their desires now, I welcome the challenge! And after this morning (Thurs, Dec. 9), I won't stroke anymore egos by even acknowledging them. Thanks again for all you help and guidance this past week! I posted on every one of my articles asking for others input on the matter at hand. So far, no one has offered, except for you, but I'll leave the request as long as necessary. Oh, and I'll drop you a line VERY soon at your talk page for assistance with another matter. Cheers. — WylieCoyote (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like your help also

You know, I thought I was a fairly advance editor when I first started, but you put me to shame. That might sound like encouragement, and it is, but it's also a cold, hard fact. As you seem to know your way around, I'd like to get your feedback. I created a guide to help others when using references. Would you mind giving me your feedback? The guide is at WP:LDRHTG. I would tell you more, but I'd rather you went in cold and give me your honest feedback. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 02:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the cold hard fact! I should hire you as a Press Agent! I looked at your reference how-to and it's awesome! You won't believe this but that was my first big section with an article's article reference! For this section, I didn't know how to link different people quotes from the same article, also known as "defining" the original source. I had no clue! I had 3 different references for the same article! I had to go to the Live Help Desk and ask somebody! Your article will help a lot of people in every instance like that. My only request is that you somehow make it visible when they all use the Wizard. If you can link it with it, then half of their battles are over. I have edited countless article that just have the weblink in the references. Finally, I had to do only one tell them to open the Edit to see how it'd done, to do the rest the same way (if similar cites). Awesome job, my friend. I wish there were more Wikians on her like you! I was gonna review it in the poll, but it didn't have one. — WylieCoyote (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice comments, WylieCoyote. I would add it to the Wizard, but I think it would be overwelming to the majority of new users. I had asked another advanced new user for feedback on it. You can see the response here. So if that user was confused then others would probably be confused as well. I've run across many 'good' new users in the last year and you are, by far, the best and brightest. Thanks for joining our project here and for hanging in there while the going is tough. I really do appreciate your help with the project. Best. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment! I looked at User:Jane Peppler's comments and never understood her confusion. Yes, I know creating an article here is "daunting" what with all the different templates to use to set one up. The best advice I can give anyone regarding anything to create here is: go into a similar article you wish to create, open the edit screen, and mirror the FORMAT of the templates into your own article, hopefully the one viewed is a stalwart banner article. To put it more slyly, and this is what I used to do, copy/paste the required template and information referenced into the new article, then change the new author/title/news source. Now, that you have created the awesome all-encompassing reference template article, all new editors need to do is use your empty templates, open the above previously-done article, read how the info is filled out, then do theirs the same way. Once they do a few, they will unconsciously automatically know how. Anyone who runs away because something appears too challenging at first probably bailed on their school term papers, which I thought of when I first saw a reference section here. And my biggest growl is to come across someone who references, using only the URL of an article. Annoying, no? Have a great weekend! — WylieCoyote (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Me too. I learned most everything by clicking the edit link and copying what was there. I still do this to learn the more advanced stuff. BTW, I have watchlisted your talk page so I can see if/when you get unfriendly messages, so that I can respond to them. So you don't need to leave me a note if you don't want to. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 05:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for intruding. I also watchlist this page for any potential interlopers. (None are in the area). I had to point out what to me is an amazing and interesting coincidence. If you look at Editor:Peppers history you find she was welcomed by....me! I remember I was surprised that she didnt grasp the "see how its done and then do the same" method. I tried to help but she didnt respond. Sadly, I gave up and moved on. Small world, this Wiki! I wonder how she is doing? Buster Seven Talk 05:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

If Ms. Pepper's home page is any indication, she hasn't Wikied in a while. Either she's ran out of articles to create or abandoned all hope? And anyone may watchlist my stuff and comment, as long as they are nice about it! Haha! Hope you two have a great have weekend! And I'm a firm believer in "learning by example."

WP:AN

Resolved

 – I get to return to my ass! — WylieCoyote (talk) 11:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The administrators' noticeboard is not the proper venue for your request to change page titles concerning the Satellite Awards. Please make this inquest at Talk:Satellite Awards.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It's been my understanding over the short month that I've been an editor at Wikipedia that no one really reads TalkPages. The Satellite Awards article hasn't been edited in six months until I showed up. So I politely went to the admin board. Should no one care about my request, I won't lose sleep over it. But I will lose respect for any/all adminstrators here, since I asked nicely. — WylieCoyote (talk) 10:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You could just get off your ass and do it yourself. And editors do indeed use talk pages. You have just found a small set of articles that no one but yourself cares about.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting how, at the top of the article for the link you gave me by telling me to "get off my ass," it says this "Just do it! (with civility, of course!)" I wonder what happens if I click on "civility." Will it go to YOUR page? I doubt it. And I hope to all that is holy that you are not a Wiki admin. If ya are, I feel sorry for the new editors coming in. — WylieCoyote (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if I was blunt. However, I attempted to tell you that you had chosen the wrong venue, you appeared to have ignored this. If no one responds to you on the article's talk page, you should very likely follow the guidelines at WP:Requested moves, which will absolutely bring forward more discussion on the matter by other editors. In the likelihood that nothing comes of that, be bold and do it yourself. The administrators are not here to look into every single inquest for which there is no dispute or administrative action (deletion, protection) necessary. I have merely attempted to prevent the resources and time of administrators to be unnecessarily focused on your miniscule issue, when there are more pressing matters to take care of.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but, as usual, I figured it out on my own. Good luck with that civility thing. I won't "bother" an admin ever again. — WylieCoyote (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Both WP:AN and WP:ANI have huge headers that describe what the pages are supposed to be used for. Your inquest was outside of those scopes.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the above exchange is completely inappropriate. You didn't do anything wrong; you needed help and went to a place where you thought you'd get help, and you instead got chewed out. I'd be willing to help right now, but I'm slightly confused about what's going on. Have you already tried to move them yourself? Since you're autoconfirmed, you can move most pages; if you can't perform the moves you want, only an admin will be able to move them. If it turns out that you can't move them yourself, please ask me for help at my talk page, and I'll do my best. Since I'm not certain exactly what you want, I'll not move anything until I understand from you what needs to be moved where: simply "Page ___ needs to be moved to ___" will work. Nyttend (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Nyttend, thank you for your interest to help me with the move/renames. As you'll see above, I was able to figure it out and rename the 3 articles that needed it. It's nice to see someone on Wiki actually cares to help out, rather than be uncivil. But the above exchange has taught me to try to figure things out on my own and not ask for help anymore. Personal attacks seem to be recurring theme on Wiki. I just never expected it would come from an admin. Thanks for your concern, Nyttend. — WylieCoyote (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)