Thanks for patrolling new pages, a vital and under-appreciated task, but please don't tag newly created articles with WP:CSD#A1 or WP:CSD#A3 too soon after creation. While things like copyright violations and attack pages need to be tagged at once, new contributors often put in a word or two and then click "Save page" to see how it looks: it is discouraging and BITEy if a speedy-deletion template pops up at once. For incomplete articles like सामाजिक अर्थव्यवस्था just now, you should make a note of the title and wait at least 10 - 15 minutes before tagging. See {{uw-hasty}}. There is general advice about new page patrolling at WP:NPP, and about speedy tagging at WP:10CSD and WP:A7M. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the page is deleted now. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Dan, I am the author of the text as I am Eszter Biro, so I can use it as much as I know about Wiki.
Please undo your action.
Thank you,
Eszter Biro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liliom24 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Magnum Crimen. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Osama bin Laden. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Battle of the Somme. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Israel. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Israel. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Precipitationshed. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Israel. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
Hi Dan
How are you? Could you please advise regarding hidden categories on the article involving BLP? I have added references/sources, and it still shows the article as 'BLP not including references/sources'. Can I remove this category myself? Couldn't find anything related to this in help sections.
Thanks,
Milan
Broadcast.milan (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ryukyu Kingdom. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Abraham Lincoln. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Serbia. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
In this case your invitation is encouraging. Thank you. I am considering the possibility of returning to the project :) Ark-pl (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good news @Ark-pl:, it will be great to see you there again! Dan Koehl (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPPROD doesn't apply to pages that have references, as this one did. He doesn't seem to be notable though, so an AFD might be a good idea instead. --Jakob (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dan Koehl, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! — xaosfluxTalk 17:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Israeli cities. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
Hello Dan Koehl. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lewis Hilsenteger, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There's one source which is enough for A7. Take to AfD if required. Thank you. GedUK 12:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then please tell them how to write a news item that doesn't take up an entire paragraph[edit]
Because all I've been trying to do is shorten it down to one or two sentences and they keeps reverting it back to their version. I don't know if it's a language barrier or their parents dropped them on their head, but they're not grokking it.--71.62.250.238 (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For stepping in to help mediate an edit war between two IP users. Your messages were an example of helpfulness, civility, and good faith, and rendered administrator intervention unnecessary. Efforts such as these really help to foster the collaborative environment that we strive for here, and for that, I award you the Barnstar of Diplomacy. Thanks, and keep up the good work! SwarmX 03:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding stubs: what kind of stub-sorting are you looking to do? Category:All stub articles contains all articles tagged with every single stub tag. Also, AWB automatically adds a stub tag to the bottom of any article it deems short enough to require it - those require further sorting, though.
As for the template, a way around the problem is by using the "what links here" option. So instead of finding every instance of "ait" on the encyclopedia, you can find only those pages that link to the template. Would that help? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have explained more details, the issue is not here on EnWp, but ona sister project, Wikispecies.
I want to use AWB to locate all stubs, which yet have not been categorized with Category:Stub. So my question is more generic; how I can search for and filter out stubs, so I can mark them with Category:Stubs, using AWB. Alternatively, how/where can I activate the automatic stub marking you mention? (But then AWB must go through all files on the wiki, sounds not easy.
Regarding the template, the idea is to remove that template on over 2 000 articles with AWB. But without risking that files with plain text Ait also get that text removed. So the question is how to filter out only where its written {{Ait}} but not just plain text Ait? I tried useing the two "XXX" around, like "{{Ait}}" but AWB still lists files with plain text Ait.
Thanks for your time. Dan Koehl (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, for the former: AWB adds the tag automatically, as long as the boxes under "automatic changes" are checked. (I never bother unchecking them - they do some helpful formatting stuff.)
Hi! I'm an user of the italian wikipedia, and a month ago (16 March) you edited my talk page writing a Template of your Wikipecies user page... why you did this?
I removed REF www.kcff.net/photography/animals/fish/anabantoids/betta/splendens/article.htm from Pierre_Carbonnier. It appears to be a self published website. (And I got black text on a black background? I had to select-all to read it.) The kcff.com page appears to cite amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1890087122/ as it's source. Baensch Aquarium Atlas (Vol. 1, 6th Edition). That might make a valid ref for the article, but I didn't check. Alsee (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Alsee:, I didn't notice that bad link. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did everything asked in your edit comments but it didn't save - or someone is vandalizing the page; the images ARE by him - who is removing them?? on what basis??
I had added lots of internal links and citation, categories everything - but they are all gone!!!
I don't know what is happening. I hope you can help.
There was (is?) a version with images, captions, citation, categories - the lot. But somehow it is not visible.
With any luck you can find this and reinstate it. And please stop whoever is taking it upon themselves to delete the pictures from the creative commons. This is ridiculous!
Don't worry, let me look into this, Im sure we can get back your version. Moment, please. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With this link you can look bak in the history of different versions of that file. With previous and next version, you can step by tsep follow what has been done with the file. It seems some pictures were deleted at commons, for some reaon, and if they are not more existing, they can not be linked to. The most probable reason for that is that they were copyright protected, and could not be used on commons.Dan Koehl (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
HI Dan
I am not very good at this I know - thank you for your help.
The images are definitely not copyright protected.
I would like to at least get back to the final version (citations etc) even if it has to be published for now wothout the images (which I will redo if necessary) - it took AGES to add all those links and so on.
Hoping you can help sort this out. (by the way I am in Ireland, local time 8.30pm) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jane Rose Barry (talk • contribs) 19:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS the one that is from the 30 March - the latest edit I did - is the one I would like to see go live.
Can't see where to make that happen though. Much relieved it hasn't gone!
Jane, Ill be happy to try to help you later, but I would for now suggest that you try to sort it out, Im sure you can do it. Take some time and study the links I did on your user page, with general information on how to edit. Later, when you follow the history of that document, you can see that later edits removed red links you made etc. I would suggest that you simply go back, and copy what you miss in the present version, and paste it there. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tanks, it actually seems that the situation is the opposite, the term Norse and Norsemen were with multiple edits replaced by the word viking? And in most cases, it seems in error. I have not replaced any mention of the word viking, when associated with raids, and piracy, but when it comes to culture, and ethnical issues, the term viking is wrong, while the term Norse and Norsemen is widely accepted by everyone, including historians and archeologists.
Yes, I already did, and I can wait. Ive seen such stupid things during this cleanup, such as Copenhagen was a viking village, and numerous occasions when the invention Viking word, as if there was a viking language ever existing... The ignorance is extraordinairy, when dealing with norse culture, and for some reason everything norse has to be vikingished on Wikipedia. Its really time that Wikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and culture starts to regain the position of the term norse, and not letting it become synonymous with the word viking. There were never a language called vikingish, or a viking culture, it was norse. That's the reason of the name of the project Wikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and culture.
I notice that no one searched consensus of replacing norse with viking...
I am not aware of anyone contending that there is a "vikingish" language, that is an Aunt Sally. You may not like the use of the term in Engish but that is not a justification. Please revert your edits pending discussion and consensus. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with the term "Norse"; I am questioning your campaign to systematically eradicate the valid usage of the English term "viking". You are making the changes, which have been challenged, so it is you who should seek consensus. Mutt Lunker (talk) 02:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC) 02:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the small number of reverts that I had so far carried out were, per my edit summaries, on the basis that they were ungrammatical, aside from your term-changing campaign. Mutt Lunker (talk) 02:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thats unvalid accusations, I have replaced "viking" with "Norse" where relevant and someone had systematicalky eradicated the valid usage of the English term "norse", when the article actually referred to someone Norse, rather than someone Viking. There is no need for a consensus for that. Norse, is norse, viking is viking, and theres nothing wrong to use the term norse for something norse. Dan Koehl (talk) 02:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your "small number of reverts", they were misuse of the tool rollback. Theres no specified number of edits which define the misuse, in fact every revert like you used it, is misuse. Dan Koehl (talk) 02:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm rolling back these terrible edits too. It had been explained to you why they were wrong before you did them, yet you persist. It will cause other editors a lot of work to revert them. You have made them without any attempt to achieve the most basic correct English ("Norsemen" is not an adjective, and "Norsemens" is not a valid plural. That amounts to vandalism; don't complain if people revert them in the most convenient way. Johnbod (talk) 04:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Johnbod and the others on this one - please stop until you've got consensus. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Koehl - It's well-established that Wikiprojects cannot by themselves set standards for all of Wikipedia. My understanding at this time is that there is no consensus to change all instances of "Vikings" to "Norsemen". If you want there to be one, there's going to need to be a centralized discussion for the entire community, not just for the members of one project. In the meantime, without a consensus to support your edits, I've rollled back a number of them. I don't have an automated tool, so I didn't do all of them, but I have suggested that other editors might think about returning the articles to the status quo ante until there is a consensus to change them. My extremely strong suggestion is that you do not revert to your previous versions without that consensus - such editing can be consider to be disruptive. Incidentally, you are incorrect in saying that rollback cannot be used for this purpose of reverting mass edits. According to WP:ROLLBACK:
Rollback may be used: ... To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page.
Hi - a number of your recent edits ([1], [2] and [3]) have been identied as failing a number of Wikipedia's guidelines including being opinion and unreferenced. They also exhibited very low standards of English. Consequently they have been reverted. Please take greater care with future edits. Thanks.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.4.92.65 (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Dan Koehl. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "sandbox".
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|User:Dan Koehl/sandbox}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted the user-page as an attack page. The offensive material was placed there by an IP, not from the account. I don't have access to OTRS; what was the content of the report you referred to? Email me if that would be better. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like king-kigeli.com is an "usurped" website. I searched and removed it from several other pages (excluding talk acrhives). Staszek Lem (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so too. Thanks for the work locating the link on other pages. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Dan. I see you recently created the template Zoos of Hungary. But, although the title says "Hungary", the content of the template says "Macedonia." And there are no links from the template to any articles about any facilities in either of these countries. So, what is up with this? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for putting my attention to that @R'n'B:, thanks to you, now the template is OK.Dan Koehl (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, in case you didn't know, the guidelines for navboxes call for their placement to be restricted to articles actually linked within the navbox itself. Broad top-level concept navboxes like {{Zoos}} don't belong on every single article about a particular zoo; more specific and relevant navboxes, such as the ones for the Soos in a particular state/country do. oknazevad (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing that out. It was added to the list in 2006. However, WP:BIDIRECTIONAL is clear, and the project task list was incorrect. I have removed it from there. oknazevad (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Oknazevad:, this however raises a couple of questions:
Why did you revert only 4 pages, when thousand of articles about a Zoo has this Template?
Should the Template:Zoos be removed from allt hose Zoo articles?
If yes, where may this Template be used, and with which rule?
Sorry for bothering you with this, but I believe this need to be clear, and I was going through all Zoo pages, and had further ambitions which now will be more difficult. And I also think that the change you made at Template:WPZOO Tasks, needs a further explanation the Template talk page, not just simple by the comment "this should not be here". With best wishes and good faith, Dan Koehl (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your questions:
See the link I posted in my last response. It will take you directly to the part of the guideline to which I'm referring.
Those 4 pages were the ones on my watchlist (I have all New Jersey zoos on my watchlist, and even started the page on the Consahasick Zoo) , which is why I reverted them when I saw your changes. When I checked your edit history, and saw that you've added the template to hindreds of pages, I decided to drop you a note and hold off on anymore reverting until we discussed things.
(&4) Yes, it should be removed from all pages except the ones that are actually linked in the navbox. That's what is meant by "bidirectional links": if a link appears in the navbox, the navbox appears in that article, so all articles in the navbox are linked by the navbox. It shouldn't go anywhere else.
PS, the other issue I had was that you were just adding the template to the very Boston of the page, not with any other navboxes that may also be there. They should all go together, otherwise the page looks like a mess. oknazevad (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, @Oknazevad:, once again, thanks for putting my attention to this, I will now start to remove the Template from the Zoo articles, and also applied for approval for a Bot for this future work, since I believe that users may future vise add the Template, according to earlier routines. You may assist me in this by supporting approval of the Bot, if you so wish. regards, Dan Koehl (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Oknazevad:, thanks to your comments, I cleaned out all the Zoo articles from the Template Zoo, which was good, since the ZooProject is now following the rules. Meanwhile, I can see that I, as the single, only active member, in this project, lost a valuable tool to track those pages, and keep a certain overview and control with them, although they are most of them in my watching list. I guess some kind of clever category or template would serve the need, and I was hoping that you, with your experience from templates, maybe you have a suggestion? Being alone within this project creates a need of being very effective... Dan Koehl (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say this, but @Oknazevad: is not stating the full picture; the navbox projects have been debating this "bidirectionality" argument for a while now, and WP:BIDIRECTIONAL flies in the face of reality. While zoos may have a specific geographic location, the same cannot be said of many other things, and navboxes CAN link to lists wherein the articles on that list include the navbox (even the guidelines said so, unless they changed them - again). Montanabw(talk) 17:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I spent the better part of two weeks putting the template on all of the zoo, aquarium, and aviary pages, and you "cleaned out all the zoo articles?". Did you use some kind of tool? The pages are all on lists!, lists which are included on the template and thus are fine to have the template on their pages. Please put them back. Pretty please with a panda on top. The discussion is ongoing, but there is certainly no consensus that items on lists which are listed on a template can't get the template, in fact the consensus is going the other way. This template is a valuable addition to the zoo pages and the Zoo Project. Thanks. Randy Kryn 18:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Randy Kryn:, I followed your example and added the Zoo template to more pages, until 4 of my edits were reverted by @Oknazevad:, please read the discussion above, where you can see that I followed what @Oknazevad: told me, after he even changed the Wikiproject Zoo guidelines. As you can see, you and me share the same opinion in this issue. You can also see, that I was reluctant, but finally accepted, and removed the template in good faith. I will be more than happy to put it back, but once the discussions are over, and the outcome is clear.Dan Koehl (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Please help to reason with the people who want it removed. The main ones, who I've found to have a very limited view of templates, are beyond reasoning with, but maybe some would be. And, if you have twenty minutes or so, please read my talk page which is led off (besides the drawing-outside-the-lines code) with discussion of a template project that I spent a year working on. Besides this nonsense, thank you for all the good work you've done on both the zoo pages and the zoo project. Regards, Randy Kryn 18:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was unsuccessful in the past, or rather I was made to believe that this rule had consensus and thus created the Zoos footer template, which is now going through a Templates for deletion discussion as noted above. The notes on the original discussion are here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Zoo/Archive 3#Zoos template. I have made my comments in the deletion discussion, and have read through the consensus discussion on "bidirectional". I agree that I like the Zoos template solution better for zoo articles than the Zoos footer solution, but have not yet figured out how best to respond in the consensus discussion. Don Lammers (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great that you engage in this issue, link back to past discussions. I became puzzled, when during the present discussions, reading comments about the WikiProject Zoos consensus. Basically because of the problem of creating a community consensus within a project with such a limited activity from its members, now at least we are two members involved in the discussions, at least a start for a step towards a project consensus. Dan Koehl (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's always been an issue with this project, as there have never been more than a few really active members at a time. But right now I'm on Thanksgiving break here in the US, so I can at least devote a bit of time. At the time of the last discussion, it was me and Bearcat (who was doing Canadian articles). We decided (for good or bad), that the big template could be removed if we put what we thought were the most important top level items in the individual "Zoos of <jurisdiction>" templates. That's being challenged now too. I think one possibility would be to create a template that we use in the See Also section rather than put the entries in the navboxes. Of course, that might be criticized as making the See Also section too long ;-( Don Lammers (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The full {{Zoos}} template seems fine and likely well-received on each zoo article. The items on the template are all of interest to some zoo patrons, and although your idea of a smaller few-item template was good it still is of the mindset of templates as second-class citizens on Wikipedia. The main one is really good, and I'd say it deserves a place on every zoo page. Speaking of zoos, how about "we" (you? lol) work up a template of 'Zoo television shows'. I just ran across Zoo Family and realized that there are likely enough such shows for a template. Again, good to meet people active on zoo pages. Randy Kryn 12:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn:, Im very positive to your idea about a 'Zoo television shows', I guess theres enough films that would be content links in such a Template, and good if they would be reached on one place. As for the present discussions, I must admit that I have problems with an evaluation. What will be the outcome, and is there an indication of consensus? Dan Koehl (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't even think of movies, good idea. Documentaries themselves would fill a section. Closing always depends on the closer, they have their own criteria. In any case, even if the close is for no templates on list items (which still seems odd to me that anyone would agree with that, a related item on a list is still a subject-related item) the option is still there to place the template on the articles. It is only a guideline, not a policy. Since the Zoos template seems to be the main one being used as an example I think it has already earned 'exemption' status due to the support it has received, and could be placed back once the discussion is over. On the zoo project, did it used to have many members? The number of articles about zoos on Wikipedia is huge, and I'd assume that many people were involved (although I'm sometimes surprised at how much work individual wikipedians do and the amount of articles they write). The zoo collection on Wikipedia seems first-rate, and hopefully zoo publications and personnel recognize that and give the collection 'real-world' coverage. So, with the tv-movies etc. template, it sounds easy enough. Do you want to start one? I'd jump in and assist, or I could put one up and people can work on it. (thought, books can maybe be on the template too) Randy Kryn 12:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ill be happy to make the Template, or should it be two different Templates, one for books and one for films and documentations? What would be a relevant title to the template? @Donlammers:, do you have an opinion, or ideas? And @Randy Kryn:, please join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Zoo and put your name on the members list, so you can also help us creating consensus within the project regarding the issues we are discussing. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and signed up as a member. Never joined a project before. I'd suggest one template which would include movies, documentaries, TV shows, books, journals, and newsletters, no harm in starting one as an all-inclusive template and then see if a division is needed. Would be nice to see them all in one place like that, and then decide. Sounds like fun. More later, Randy Kryn 14:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn:, great that you joined the Zoo project, I have felt very lonely, and now at least we are two active members. please think above how we can attract more members, as you maybe saw the banner "This WikiProject is believed to be inactive. " on the project page. What title would be relevant, "Zoos in the media" or do you have a suggestion? Dan Koehl (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As we speak, there are removals of the Zoos template happening based on the current ongoing discussion, so I'm not quite so sure this is something people are agreeing to as an exception. Don Lammers (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The exception would come because the page is not a policy, it's a guideline. And the template was removed by Dan Koehl from all of them when he was asked to at the start of section. What you might be seeing is the {{Zoos footer}} template, which was up for deletion and is much smaller and not needed if the main {{Zoos}} template is on the pages. As for the media template, how does simply 'Zoo media' seem? Don't really have to name it now though, and when we see what it looks like probably one of us will think of the perfect name. Randy Kryn 12:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what I was seeing was something completely unrelated, and I misinterpreted the diffs. I agree that the Zoos footer template is not needed. Even if the footer is removed, we have the more general categories linked on the left. However, Robsinden is challenging this by his edits in Zoos of New York, where he removed both the footer and the links to the more general topics on the left. As with previous discussions on this topic, I am seeing no consensus in the current discussion. Also, at least for now I think "Zoo media" is a good working title. Don Lammers (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the redlink on your zoo footer link above and thought the footer had already been deleted, but when I went to check in a Zoos of template, discovered that "Zoos" is plural in the template name. I fixed it in your text above. I have also modified the Zoos template slightly. There were redundant links in the header, so I de-linked them. On the left, only "Conservation" was linked, and this actually went to "Conservation biology", so I put "Conservation biology" in the body and de-linked the title. I think ultimately we should probably de-link the jurisdiction name in the "Zoos of" templates as well. However, b efore doing anything major, we should wait until we have a bit more clarity on what we are doing overall. If you look at the whole navbox article (not just the bidirectional part), "Zoos of" templates could be interpreted as not bieng appropriate. They do not follow two of the items listed: 3) The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent and 4) There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template. On closer look though, the list is introduced by "Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines" (so our templates are OK), and is directly followed by "If the collection of articles does not meet these tests..." (which implies all tests, so our templates don't qualify), which are contradictory. I read some of the other linking articles, and although overall they have good advice, all of them ultimately leave the decisions for linking to local common sense and consensus. Don Lammers (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Donlammers:, yes I also wait to see the result of the discussions, but it already looks like its not really clear that theres a consensus behind "the rule". Its so nice to see that you feel engaged again, and since I was the one marking your name as inactive on the project page, I changed back, now when you are active. Btw what do you think, shouldn't we remove the "This WikiProject is believed to be inactive. " sign on the project page, wtching the present discussion, with origin from the work of the project, no one can really claim its an inactive project? -We need more active members, and it doesn't really help with a sign, telling that the project is inactive? Dan Koehl (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There have been several other discussions about just this issue already, and all were more or less inconclusive. There is indeed no consensus on the nabvox issue. If you follow some of the links on that page, you will find that there never has been Don Lammers (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what i wrote on the talk page. I have removed the sources for this claim, The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים ISO 259-3 Yehudim, Israeli pronunciation [jehuˈdim]), also known as the Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious group[11] originating from the Israelites, or Hebrews, of the Ancient Near East. The sources are tertiary and should be replaced by secondary sources, which reflect current thinking on this claim. They should not be restored until consensus is reached.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Please restore my change. regards Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, @Johnmcintyre1959: I reverted back to your version, since its difficult to see through the discussions on the talk page, and estimate what is the resent consensus. Please avoid edit wars. Dan Koehl (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Starting a new heading for this... I have removed the header from the project page. It remains to be seen how "active" I will actually be. It seems unlikely that I will be able to do much at except during holidays (currently it's the Thanksgiving holiday here in the US) - at least until next summer.
I just went through and assessed all of the unassessed articles (6). I made sure they all had infoboxes and (if available, "Zoos of" navboxes. At one point I did this for all stub articles, but I don't know what the status of those are now.
I have started through stubs to see where they stand (don't count on this much activity except during holidays any more, at least until I retire from my day job). So far I have almost gotten through "A". There were a couple of articles I re-rated as start-class, and one that I turned into start-class, and I'm doing some cleanup along the way, but the main purpose of this pass is to make sure all stubs that should have infoboxes and navboxes, actually have them. Among other things, today I had to create a "Zoos of Greece" template and link it up to all Greek zoos and aquariums, and I found out that another "Zoos of" template was not listed as part of the Zoos project. so this is not a "zip through it" type of project.
We need to figure out what we want to do with navboxes for zoos of Japan. I tried just dumping all Japanese zoos into one big list, but this makes a mess. If we go by prefecture, there are way too many templates (30-some prefecture-level jurisdictions). I'm thinking maybe doing it by region (I think there are some fairly well established regions that we could use), and just having a second column with the region. So we would have the category (Zoos, Aquariums, etc.) in column 1, the regions in column 2, and the actual zoos in column 3. Don Lammers (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do with this over Christmas break. I just looked, and WikiPedia defines 8 regions in Regions of Japan, so we can use them. I don't think it will be too complicated. It has felt good being able to spend some time again editing - almost two full days this past week - it's similar but different from my day job, and actually somewhat relaxing. I have used your database as citation on occasion. It's a good reference. Don Lammers (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect @Donlammers:, lets go for regions. Please let me know if you need a hand with this, during the Christmas break I will be online and available for all sorts of cooperation. Within a week I have moved to Cambodia, and will spend at least 50% working time to Wikimedia projects, and plan to make new zoo articles, e.g. destroy red links. But... how can we recruit more members to Zoo project? If you can help me with putting together some lines, tempting people to start write zoo articles, I think I can distribute this request to a number of Internet locations with Zoo (interested) people. Dan Koehl (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you have some gonads. I just made an edit with a two line edit comment, and you have the gall to revert it without any edit comment, while lambasting me on my talk page that I didn't give an explanation. You should be ashamed of yourself!
Don't revert me again without debating the issue first.-62.155.205.3 (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you didn't read my edit summary. That doesn't mean I didn't leave one, as you wrote on my talk page. Please be more careful in the future. Thank you. 66.87.114.202 (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did, and I didn't find that it was very convincing, seems you have a biased angle on that article. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care whether you found it convincing. It was inappropriate for you to use rollback to revert an edit that clearly was not vandalism, and reviewing your talk page, it looks like you have a problem seeing other editors' edit summaries before you use rollback. Please be more careful in the future, or I will bring the matter to WP:ANI. 66.87.115.86 (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit war doesn't lead anywhere, I have suggested the page to be protected. I suggest you try to find a consensus on the talk page instead of trying to win an edit war. Dan Koehl (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind for what you did to my editing's in the pages Fantastic Four (2015 film). I just want 20th Century Fox to be warned about my opinion(on what to do with the rights of the fantastic four) ands I didn't know other way to warn them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.247.184 (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a retired Wikipedian who used to have the rollback feature and who continues to edit occasionally as an IP, I would like to remind you that the rollback feature is to be used only in clear case of vandalism. If you actually had read what was removed in the WICY instead of jumping on the rollback, you would have seen that the content that was removed was actually promotional POV content that is incompatible with Wikipedia.
Please pay attention to the edits in the future before using the feature, as misuse of the tool can result of you losing access to the rollback feature.
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:74.57.17.58 has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. The content that was removed was promotional POV content and an edit summary was left about it. Please pay attention to the edits in the future before misusing the rollback feature as such abuses could lead in you losing access to this tool. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.67.26 (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Dan, you reverted my edit within 60 seconds of it being made.
The edit was the deletion of this para:
Social myths are common knowledge-based reasons for the subjugation of one particular person or group (=genocide), for a particular purpose, or it can not be defined as discrimination, only "bias", which will have to be talked about at length itself if a real in-depth approach is to be taken to this subject. The chaos involved in this discussion can be explained by saying that society first is based on reason supported by facts and followed by acts and made up of people: Class, order, neighborhoods, work sites, government, local state and federal, accompanied by the mischievousness of life they all produce when they interact together as one reason to be.
Hello Dan Koehl, thank you for the swift revert to my version of Alone in the Universe. I am quite new to Wikipedia, making my first edit on 3 July this year, but I am learning, or trying to! I had missed this deletion. It is interesting to me that the exact section deleted (and which you reverted) is a section I am currently discussing with another Wikipedia editor at the Alone in the Universe talk page Basically he thinks the quality of the review I cited in this text is 'atrocious' and shouldn't be used. Naturally I disagree with him. I fear I may have a learning curve to take with dispute processes on Wikipedia soon regarding this, but am confident the process will work as it should, albeit with a few mistakes by me along the way. On the subject of your revert to my version, my observation was simple... The section you reverted had been deleted by a IP address and not an established user, and this is the only edit this address has ever done on Wikipedia. I wonder if it is a coincidence the section deleted is a section in dispute? So please forgive the possible stupidity of this question, but can IP addresses be linked to users that already exist by Administrators or similar? Or can anybody effectively just not sign in to Wikipedia from 'their' PC and carry out random, disruptive, or just annoying edits if they wish? I apologise for asking you these questions, but from your user page you seem well-versed in the workings of Wikipedia and this may help me identify who made this edit, and ask them why. Of course, I intend to do this via Talk for the IP address, but I fear little or no success... Thank you in advance for your time.Wolpat (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Wolpat:, research into IP adresses are only done in cases of suspicion of sockpuppets. But if You had an email from this person, nothing stops you from looking into the headers, and try to find the IP of the sender, and see i they match. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Dan Koehl. I have no email but thank you for taking the time out to reply and offer advice. I will keep an eye on the article and go and learn what a sockpuppet is! Thanks again.Wolpat (talk) 08:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read my edit summary? Did you look at the references that I removed? Did you see any mention of this actress in those references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.43.81 (talk) 08:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I looked at references:
She most recently played Maria in the premiere episode of the 2011 TV series, The Borgias.[1]
where I read:
The Borgias (TV Series)
Maria
- The Poisoned Chalice (2011) ... Maria (uncredited)
You can see a couple of samples at User:Donlammers/templates/Zoos of Japan and User:Donlammers/templates/Zoos of Japan2. I don't really like either, as they both look kind of clunky (IMHO). What I would really like is if I could set up an "above" section that just listed the 8 regions, and then when you click on a region, only that region shows. However, I haven't figured out how to do that yet. If I could do this, I could also set up a U.S template listing all the states. Doctor Who does this, but it requires an article for each state/region/whatever, which we don't have. And quite frankly, I can't imagine what I would say in an article about, for instance, "Zoos of California" except list them. I've never been a fan of creating articles just for the purpose of consolidation, without substantive content. Comments are welcome, and I will keep experimenting. Don Lammers (talk) 04:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can see another version I did, with regions under zoo type at User:Donlammers/templates/Zoos of Japan3. I think this is a bit better, but it's still not really what I would like to see. Don Lammers (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not done Im sorry but religious matters is not my strength. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:74.57.17.58 has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. The content that was removed was promotional POV content and an edit summary was left about it. Please pay attention to the edits in the future before misusing the rollback feature as such abuses could lead in you losing access to this tool. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.67.26 (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
