User talk:CAWylie/Archive 2

WikiProject Cleanup invitation

I've formatted the WikiProject Cleanup page to include members for those that are interested in joining, similar to how other projects have members. Since you've contributed relatively recently to the project's list page, I formally extend this invitation to join WikiProject Cleanup! I've also created a userbox template for members to use on their user pages. Thank you for your contributions to help improve Wikipedia! Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, Northamerica1000. I'll try to help with the cleanup since most of my TV shows are on hiatus. — WylieCoyote (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit?

Hi CAWylie, I saw your name at the membership list of the GOCE and was wondering if you'd be willing to copyedit an article that I've been working on? I've been working on it for a couple months and I'd like to nominate it for featured status in a month or two. The article is Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, you might even find it somewhat interesting. A couple other people have looked at it and I think the prose is in good shape, but they are very strict at WP:FAC so I like to get a lot of eyes on things before I take them there--and you said "nothing gets by me!". No hurry though, take your time. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how much help I can be on the article, but I'll try. I also don't know if others would nominate it as a "feature," either. — WylieCoyote (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

A Weaver on the Horizon

Thank you on A Weaver on the Horizon. -- NeoBatfreak (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! I can edit articles like those that are about movies or TV shows that need it, even if I don't know about the subject matter. Glad I could help! — WylieCoyote (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm just about to archive the GOCE request and noticed your comment about the two paragraphs copied to another web site. Copying of wikipedia material to oether web sites is allowed (though I believe it's supposed to be acknowledged). It doesn't put us any obligation to change our stuff to differentiate from the copies, does it? After all, it's our stuff, not theirs. Anyway, thanks for all your copy editing work. --Stfg (talk) 11:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand Wiki gets copied. That's why the SOPA and so forth arose. BUT in order to "copyedit" articles, we, or at least I, check online to see if anything is copy-pasted to Wiki. When I saw A Weaver on the Horizon word for word on another site, I then checked the dates/times for both. Our article was done first. However, I would hate see someone, who doesn't verify these things, blank an article or section because they didn't take time to verify. I also didn't copyedit the article in order to differentiate from the others. It just needed it, as requested. Next time, I won't bother verifying. — WylieCoyote (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Did I offend you? I'm very sorry if so. Your checking was perfect. I was responding to your comment "Copy-editors and NeoBatfreak need to work on rewriting/changing the wording to differentiate from the copiers", and only wanted to say that there's no obligation to do that. --Stfg (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

No offense, but when whatever I do on Wiki gets questioned, it makes me wonder that people on here think I don't know what I'm doing. I do, most of the time, and when I don't, I don't act like I do. Thanks again for the editing compliment. — WylieCoyote (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Apologies for giving that impression. --Stfg (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for the apology and for archiving the request. — WylieCoyote (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

In my defence, I think there are a couple more things I need to say. In what you wrote on the GOCE Requests page, quoted above, you made an observation about what Neobatfreak and copy editors "need to" do. When any of us, however able, make comments in a public place like the requests page, instructing or advising what others should or need to do, surely it's legitimate for others to express disgreement. The other thing is that it's a large leap from stating a disagreement with something you've said to expressing doubt about whether you know what you're doing. Re-reading my first comment, I believe it merely challenged that specific piece of advice you gave, without at all questioning your competence. I'm sorry you took it that way, but I have to say I don't think I said anything inappropriate. --Stfg (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

And I believe in my response to your original comment, I had a legitimate counter. That's why I was in favor of SOPA, but it would force websites like Wiki to police themselves. While I agree with you that Wiki articles need referenced when "copied" to other websites, that's also a pipe dream (fantastic notion). So, therefore, I think it would be best to re-word certain things ourselves, which is also an outrageous whim of an idea. Nevertheless, that GOCE article has been archived, and therefore my comments there will no longer be visible, so what's the point to all of this here? Just like you felt it necessary to point out that it's not necessary to change anything when found that it's copied to another site, my suggestion was also my right. But, as I said, I will no longer verify anything while copy-editing, and let others get their dander up when they believe OUR articles have been copy-pasted, even though I doubt that will also be verified much. No offense was taken with your original "suggestion" and this matter is closed, since it's just between us apparently. — WylieCoyote (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Requests get archived when done. Visibilty can be retained, if you wish, by posting on the talk page. --Stfg (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

What, and be criticized there as well? No thanks! — WylieCoyote (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

WylieCoyote, I didn't criticize you, nor your actions. In fact I acknowledged that your checks were perfect. I merely disagreed with your suggestion as to how others should act. You're taking a difference of opinion as personal criticism. Bye. --Stfg (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stfg, when something of yours gets accused of being copy-pasted, as one of my articles itself was last year, you'll understand why I stated what I did. An ounce of prevention is worth four days now of pain. I'm exaggerating the pain part, but apparently I've been doing that lately. Thanks again for the copyedit compliment. And differences of opinion are what make this world what it is. — WylieCoyote (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for saying that. After last year's accusation, which I didn't know about, I trust you were vindicated sooner rather than later? I can imagine how unpleasant it must be at the time. I wish I knew how to prevent such things, but as far as I can see, however much we change articles, the new versions are going to continue getting copied, aren't they? Do you see a way to avoid this problem without having to keep tracking the copies for ever? --Stfg (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

As you stated earlier, Wikipedia "allows it" apparently. That's why I think the SOPA Act was a good thing. The only thing I can think of, from Wikipedia's POV is to embed a copyright code somewhere, even if 50 editors here change the article. If someone outside of Wiki copies, it would have that "code" in it. Anything can be worked around using a computer, though, right? For my own articles, I research the subject thoroughly to make sure I don't mistakenly copy other stuff, and thesaurus/dictionaries are handy to tweak things further. It's just very difficult to stay on top of, once you release your creation into the world, as you stated, especially if it's something from last week, month or year. BUT the good thing about a trusty search engine site, they show you the beginning of articles, including Wikis, which helps spot the thieves. And I reworded my additions, last year, and the offenders were happy. — WylieCoyote (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm going to sign out from this discussion now, but I'm glad we've had it. I've been trawling through the old monthly "copyedit" cleanup categories recently, and have identified five articles so far that looked like copyright violations. To be fair to me, four have been proven by the people at the copyright problems noticeboard and one still awaits investigation; no false positives so far. But as this is part of what I do, it's good to be reminded of the importance of checking very carefully before doing anything that will obviously be unpleasant for the person being investigated. Keep well, --Stfg (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by, and for being one of those on top of the copyright violations. And yes, there are those out there who take the easy route and copy-paste, not knowing it's wrong or just not caring. Sorry for all the trouble and thanks again for the compliment on the editing. Take care. — WylieCoyote (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the copy-edit tag on Talk:A Weaver on the Horizon. I saw that last night and wanted to change it, but didn't want to appear selfish. It still looks like a great article and would be better if we could find better sources, as two links are "dead." — WylieCoyote (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

No problems, and again, thanks. --NeoBatfreak (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization tags different

Hello. I thought I'd take a look to see if all was well with the word counts now, and became concerned. The purpose of the drive is to clear the backlogs of articles tagged {{copy edit}} and of articles on the request pages. Only these may be counted. I'm afraid articles tagged {{Capitalization}} don't qualify. I'm also puzzled about your word counts for Love is an Illusion and Garden of the Moon.

Please don't get me wrong: what you've done with those articles is admirable. It's just that the above two and Parramatta Girls Home appear not to qualify for the drive, I'm afraid. Regards. --Stfg (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Then, in my opinion, articles tagged for {{Capitalization}} shouldn't be listed here (under P ) if that's the case. Thanks for the offer to join the drives, but I feel that I must retire from the GOCE and your drives. I always thought it weird that the word totals come before any work that is done, rather than the 5 or 5,000 that we add/change. This also explains why most newspapers have spelling errors because they must not consider THAT copy-editing either. Good luck with the future "copy edits." — WylieCoyote (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the *almost* copyedit plug! --^Despay_re (^tal_k) 02:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Huh? — WylieCoyote (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Cougar Town (season 3)

I'm not sure what you meant by this. If you set "{{Reflist|2}}" you get two columns regardless of whether you're using 640x480 resolution on a 13" monitor or 1980x1080 on a 50" TV. "{{Reflist|30em}}" allows the browser to automatically decide the number of columns based on the horizontal resolution; the wider the screen, the more columns. There's really no need for "{{Reflist|2}}". --AussieLegend (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Some pages don't even have columns, others have too many. At the the time, I thought Cougar Town (season 3) didn't need 3-7 columns, hence my "{{Reflist|2}}". I'll still use it and if people want to change it, that's their right. The {{reflist}} template says this:

Columns
Using {{Reflist|2}} will create a two-column reference list, and {{Reflist|3}} will create a three-column list, and so on. Choose the number of columns that is appropriate for the average width of the references on the page.

Using {{Reflist|30em}} will create columns with a minimum width of 30 em, allowing the browser to automatically choose the number of columns based on the width of the web browser. Choose a column width that is appropriate for the average width of the references on the page.

I've used many different reflist templates. Thank you. Hard to believe this is an issue, with all the other formatting issues that I've come across. — WylieCoyote (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Castle Episode article

Hi, I'm new to wikipedia and I am writing an article about an episode of Castle. I was wondering if you would look at my article and give me any feedback or criticism you see necessary. I would appreciate your help! Thanks!! here is the link to my article Tick, Tick, Tick... (Castle). Tsybes (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsybes (talk • contribs) 20:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tsybes! I would be honored to help with the article for my favorite Castle episode! First, let me put a header in it so people won't delete it! — WylieCoyote (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

How about if I set it up like some of my own TV episode articles, and you can use it as a guide for any others that you do? I'll leave your summary in tact. Just make sure it's your own work and not copied from anywhere online (a big Wiki no-no). It looks like it's your own words. - WylieCoyote (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The Killing template

I don't feel it was particularly necessary to blank out valid episode titles just because there aren't articles for them yet. It's not just there for navigation, it's also there for ease of reference–which is no longer the case with the titles stripped out of it.

That said: I can see how much work you do on the various pages for the show, and I am both impressed and appreciative of the time and quality work you've put in. Well done! DigiFluid (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. It happened to me when I did this template last year. See the Dec. 14 Revision History there. When someone removed my non-links, I felt the same as you. It just depends on who has a bad day at the time they see unlinked items, I guess. As for "ease of reference", the Episodes header on the template is wikilinked if anyone needs to know that badly. Personally, I don't mind the non-links/redlinks/etc. Thanks for the compliments, though! — WylieCoyote (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I put your work back into the template, after thinking about it. Thank YOU for adding those! (See my comment about re-adding it!) — WylieCoyote (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability

Regarding this edit summary, and this one too, everything added to Wikipedia must be verifiable in accordance with our verifiability policy. Future episode content that is not sourced is regularly and routinely removed unless a source is included. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but it's already been discussed in great length at WikiProject TV. At the time of those edits, I was unaware of violations as I have seen numerous "future content" added in most of those articles' (and others') summaries. — WylieCoyote (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Ogi Jun Infobox.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ogi Jun Infobox.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. ☼ 22:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering where you were. Welcome back, old foe. Go ahead and delete it. I don't care. — WylieCoyote (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

A Little Kiss

Just wanted to say thanks for you help on "A Little Kiss" during the GA Review Period. It was extremely helpful. Penny Lane's America (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! I saw where it was nominated and thought I would tweak it since I added to it at its inception. Great job on the layout too! — WylieCoyote (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Bree Van de Kamp

Hi, I have reverted the cut and paste move on Bree Van de Kamp. Please move correctly by a request at WP:RM and not by cut and paste of content as that breaks the attribution for an article. Thanks. Keith D (talk) 01:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I wasn't the one who did the move, merely the redirects. I really don't give a toss about which page it's on. You should send the message to the one who attempted the move, as in, research who moved it. I know how to move/request moves. Thanks. — WylieCoyote (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I also dropped the same note on their talk page. Keith D (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Then your bases are covered. I also noticed the discussion at the bottom of said Talk Page, if those who moved it would've just scrolled down. Thanks for stopping by! — WylieCoyote (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like The Killing

Category:Wikipedians who like The Killing, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

(NOTE: was renamed Category:Wikipedians who like The Killing (U.S. TV series)) WylieCoyote (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI

There is someone identifying themselves as "WylieCoyote" who makes frequent contributions to Talk:Deaths in 2012. This person just types in that name and other tag information as opposed to using the four tildes. If they're impersonating you, then you have me as a witness. If that's really you, then I apologize for taking up your time. Guyovski (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That is me. Thanks. And I use the four tildes but have my settings set to not be normal. — WylieCoyote 20:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Commissions and Fees

Please do not strike concerns on the "Commissions and Fees" GAC nomination. That is for the reviewer to do.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Was unaware of the "rules". Thanks. —WylieCoyote (talk) 02:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Alcatraz Complete Series DVD.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Alcatraz Complete Series DVD.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Restored. — WylieCoyote (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Scheduling information edit

This is not TV Guide; scheduling information does not belong in the infobox and lede, particularly since the show has not even aired yet. Don't try to rush things when the disaster hasn't even occurred yet. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Most people leave references to article edits that I have done. Congrats on being the first not to. And, if you scroll down in the articles for most of the dates and times that I have listed today, others beat me to it. The way I see it the "Crystal Ball" nonsense you cited says at the very beginning: "Wikipedia is not a collection of 'unverifiable' speculation". I think I listed sources. It goes on to say "As an exception, even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient." Perhaps you should have cited this instead? If you use your quaint TV Guide correcting, you'll have a busy summer. — WylieCoyote (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)