User talk:Robert K S/Archive03

Talkback

Hello, Robert K S. You have new messages at Andyzweb's talk page.
Message added 01:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

o hai andyzweb (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Your question

Hi Robert KS, Power.corrupts ask me to give you some advice.

You could contact all relevant wikiprojects with the following:

Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}}, Currently their is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete all 50,000 articles about a living person without references.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person:Editor Jehochman's position
2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person:Editor Collect's position

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Thank you all for your valuable contributions to Wikipedia. ~~

Let me know if you are interested, I can show you how to do this very quickly, sending a message to each wikiproject in a list in three or less clicks.

The conversation about this will be centralized on my talk page: >>> User_talk:Ikip#How_you_can_help <<<. Ikip 17:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we have the same ambitions and goals, for example, Power.corrupt praised my section on Wikipedia:RFC/BLP. You maybe very interested in the petition which inspired me to create this: User:Ikip/iar, which you are welcome to add to your talk page. Thank you for your dedication to the project. Ikip 17:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Wow, Ikip is faster than me. Enjoyed you user page. Thanks for your comment anyway. Power.corrupts (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Let me know Robert :) Ikip 19:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiThanks

Thanks for taking the time to share your valuable opinion. "I don't see why unsourced BLPs shouldn't have the same prod or AfD process applied to them as any other article." amen to that. Ikip 23:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

ENIAC downgrade

Robert, a reasonable question, you may know a lot of this already. An article doesn't have to have the same grade for all projects. I'm not signed-up with the computing or Philadelphia projects. Both those projects use the same criteria for A-class assessment including, should "be well referenced". A lot of the paragraphs in the article and two sections, patent and reliability, have no inline citations. This was my reason for downgrading. there are a few other minor issues with article e.g. authors not in alphabetical order, duplicate links e.g. edvac, honeywell and external links is quite long, which i'll have a go at.

There is a broader policy issue that good article status is not a requirment for A-class which causes problems and i'll endeavour to pursue, cheers Tom B (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

John Reilly (actor)

Um, that edit was nearly a year ago. I can't remember what I did yesterday let alone something I did in March 2009. I'm guessing it probably just a simple mistake on my part. I do make those from time to time. Pinkadelica^♣ 23:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Heather Tallchief

Accusatory much? You assume bad faith from me all the time. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• You know what? That was just rude of me and I apologize. We have been reconciling some differences after all, haven't we? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Frances Elizabeth Holberton

Hi Robert,

I had contact to the daugther of Frances Elizabeth Holberton, (namely to Priscilla), and she asked me to write her full name to her mothers article, because Frances Elizabeth Holberton used to sign documents not with her nickname but her full name. I would like you to respect her wish. -- ThePacker (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you moved the discussion to my talkpage: please see my update. -- ThePacker (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Jeopardy! "to date"

Oh, okay. The original phrasing had both "to date" and the date of April 1. I thought I was removing a redundancy. Sorry. JTRH (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Eytan Mirsky

Hi. I thought perhaps you were a very new user, but I see you're not. How can the fact that there is no reference to Jeopardy! in the entire article be irrelevant to categorization? Whoever wants to prove he was on Jeopardy! is responsible for supplying the information to that effect, not us wikignomes. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Ancient issue

from 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.34.167 (talk • contribs) 2010-04-28T22:53:43

Episode status

Hi Robert, thanks for the response. You weren't the editor I was concerned about, but I appreciate your input nonetheless. Over the years, I've read about NBC's wiping practices in several places both in print and on the Web, so I'm certain (a) that it's true, (b) that it's relevant to the article, and (c) that there's a reliable source to corroborate it. What I'm concerned about is the use of an unsourced statement like "the tapes are believed to have been wiped." Believed by whom? The author of the article? The producer of the show? Someone at the network? On what basis is it believed? The warlike metaphor that I used was unfortunate; in a subsequent conversation with another editor, I toned it down to a more appropriate "weed-whacking." I was planning to use gardening tools, not napalm. :) JTRH (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like "believed to be", "likely to have been" does the trick, though both are perfectly acceptable in scholarly contexts. It's impossible in most cases to prove that something doesn't exist. Though on the face of it "believed to be" or "likely to have been" seem like more ambiguous statements, they are preferable over a firmer statement that cannot be indisputably proven. Robert K S (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Robert, I have some new information posted on Sottolacqua's talk page. Let me know what you think. JTRH (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

re: "Episode status"

Please continue this discussion on your own talk pages. I appreciate your consideration for my opinion, but I am not interested in helping with the project. Thanks for understanding Sottolacqua (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Robert, I reposted the new info on my talk page. JTRH (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Height Help

Robert,

In the article on Callas, in the section dealing with weight loss, I expanded a quote where Callas states her height. I'm having trouble figuring out how to properly write five eight and a half. Could you help with that? Thanks!!Shahrdad (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it should just be 5'8 1/2". Alternately you could write it with the special symbol 5'8½". Robert K S (talk) 03:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think i'll do it the second way. I like the way the 1/2 looks in smaller letters, but still not sure how you did it!!Shahrdad (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Whenever you go to edit a page, beneath the "Save page" button there's a dropdown to select from a variety of special symbols to insert. Robert K S (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CSULaw.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CSULaw.jpg. 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.
• 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) 05:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

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

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

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Wheel of Fortune merge proposal

Hey – I'm curious to see if you have any opinion you'd like to share related to a merge proposal I'm making with Wheel of Fortune articles (Talk:Wheel of Fortune (U.S. syndicated game show)#Merge proposal, part 2). The two of us haven't always agreed on article content, but I think we both have the same general goal here on Wikipedia. Feel free to weigh in. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Renoir (Surname)

Jean Renoir (the movie director son of Pierre-Auguste Renoir) was as innovative and famous in his field as the painter was in his. I believe he should be included in the "Renoir (Surname)" page for that reason. Perhaps Pierre and Claude should not, but Jean definitely should.

I did not clarify any source documents for the other writer regarding the two Gabrielle Renoirs since neither has achieved the noteworthiness of being included in Wikipedia. I felt it was a moot point.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWriterandEditor (talk • contribs) 17:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Jeopardy!

Well, I could have explained the Jeopardy! podium rules better:

1. Returning champions are always on the left.
2. Contestant coordinators draw for the other two players in regular play.
3. In the first game, the contestants drew numbers.
4. In tournament quarterfinals and kids weeks, the podiums are done by surname.
5. In tournament semifinals and finals, podiums are done by score in previous round.
6. In early ToCs, podiums were done by previous earnings.
7. I do not know the order the podiums are done in Celebrity games.

This is not very reliable, because neither me nor anyone I know has been a contestant. Us441(talk) (contribs) 01:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

At least that makes sense, whereas what you wrote originally did not... Robert K S (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Critical mass / About template

Hello, Robert K S. You have new messages at Template talk:About.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Super Jeopardy!

Sorry for adding that Super Jeopardy! uses points. I added that because the failed GA review said that that was necessary to add. Us441(talk)(contribs) 12:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That's weird. The article regularly gets pruned of factoids by cruft-busters, and little factoids sprinkled throughout the article are the frequent target of such editing. Anyway, a footnote, or the Super Jeopardy! article, is probably the right place for that information, if it's not found elsewhere in the article already, rather than putting it in the "episode status" section, which is intended to say which episodes of Jeopardy! are likely destroyed and will therefore never be viewable, vs. which episodes are known to be safely archived (as evidenced, for example, by their having been rerun). Where is this failed GA review? Robert K S (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It is on the talk page. Us441(talk)(contribs) 20:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Alison ^❤ 20:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I want rollback. I believe I can be trusted to use rollback. I haven't changed my position on our earlier disagreement. Wherein a user is clearly editing articles merely to promote an ethnic or political agenda, and wherein that agenda is unmistakably clear from that user's edit record and talk contributions, that user's edits in pursuit of that agenda constitute vandalism to the encyclopedia when they are repeated again and again without consensus. The proper test to apply in determining vandalism is the dual "bad faith"/"article harm" test using the "careful thought" standard as elaborated on WP:VANDALISM; incareful thought may lead to incorrect conclusions on either or both of the tests and/or yield a conclusion of "content dispute", "NPOV violation" or "disruptive editing" even when "vandalism" is the proper conclusion. That said, I'll probably only use rollback sparingly at this point. It's safer not to use it as long as there are administrators who disempower as a punitive measure. On a more personal note, I hope you're well. And, um, thanks for remembering me, I guess? Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Corrections

I see you are a founding J! Archive archivist. Because I can't use "suggest correction" on player pages, those corrections will come here.

1. Dane Garrett was not a 2-day champ. If he was, he would have been with a co-champ in Chuck Forrest game 1. He could have been a 4-day champ, as Gary Palmer was the last one into the ToC and had more money than Dane.
2. 5-day champ Richard Perez-Pena had a total of 40,300 rather than 40,303 like Richard Cordray.

Us441(talk)(contribs) 00:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi... the proper course of action when submitting corrections on a player is to just submit a general correction suggestion on a game that includes that player. I will look into your suggestions... Thanks, Robert K S (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(1) Why could Dan Garrett not have been a 2-day champ? He could have tied in his first game and then again in his second game, then lost his third game against Chuck Forrest. (2) What is your source for Richard Perez-Pena's total? Robert K S (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(1) There would be returning co-champs in Chuck Forrest's game.(2) It was a Jeopardy! Tournament Montage video on YouTube. Us441(talk)(contribs) 00:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(1) That's a good point. (2) Link, please? Robert K S (talk) 05:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(2) See this video. Richard Perez-Pena happens to be very early on. Us441(talk)(contribs) 11:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry the link doesn't work. The URLs are identical. I checked carefully. Us441(talk)(contribs) 11:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope I fixed it this time. I misread 1 character in the URL. Us441(talk)(contribs) 11:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It worked. Us441(talk)(contribs) 11:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

A random stranger looked at your userspace and said...

You seem to have had a very interesting life.

-Random Stranger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.10.240.88 (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

J! Message Board

I have tried to register to the J! Message Board on two dates. Both days, it said "Sorry, we are unable to register your account at this time. What is wrong? Us441(talk)(contribs) 20:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm the wrong person to ask. Robert K S (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

Please remain civil and do not make personal attacks on me as you have in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Forrest, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerome Vered (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Rutter, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Pawson. Please keep discussion on-topic with the subject listed in the nomination. If you feel I am acting in bad faith, open a case rather than using a deletion discussion as a forum for voicing your own opinion about the edits and contributions I make. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. It's your belief that, for me to say that for my part the presumption of good faith does not apply to you since I have observed your editing behavior over a number of years, is a personal attack? As WP:AGF points out, GF is a rebuttable presumption rather than a necessarily permanent state: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence." (1) You made a blanket AfD of numerous articles. (2) That AfD was shut down because there were too many differences between articles. (3) Rather than create individual AfDs addressing each article individually, you created a "template rationale" and cloned the old AfD to a bunch of individual AfDs. That is a prima facie bad faith move on your part. I respectfully asked you to withdraw certain of those AfDs and start afresh. This is not too much to ask, it is merely following proper procedure and proceeding ethically. You in response slap my talk page with an incivility template. Give me a break. Straighten up and fly right. If you're going to mass AfD articles, do it right, don't make misrepresentations, and don't plant unattributed quotations in them--that's all I ask. Robert K S (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not make personal attacks as you did at User talk:Sottolacqua. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images, especially those in violation of our biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

Please stop attempting to instigate conflict by provoking me on my talk page. Again, if you feel I am acting in bad faith, open a case. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No, thanks, I haven't the time to be wiki-suing you. If you want to open a case, I suggest you open one on yourself. My asking what mischief you're up to this week isn't a "personal attack". You do mischief. This point is incontrovertible. I would just prefer to be notified of it, when you do it, so that I may most effectively counter it with what little time I have on the encyclopedia. Yes, I could hunt through your contributions log. But this is time consuming and I would prefer you just post a notification to my talk page whenever, in the future, you decide to work yourself up into a senseless mass-AfD tizzy. Robert K S (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Super Jeopardy!

May I suggest the close to merge in Super Jeopardy! was an incorrect result, and that the result should be reversed or relisted? I didn't even see this AfD. Sottolacqua has been nominating Jeopardy!-related articles in stealth en masse over the past couple weeks and some of them I've missed without seeing. In this case we have a pretty clear error. The entire deletion rationale was bogus. Super Jeopardy! was related to Jeopardy by name, host, set, and basic style of gameplay, but it was not the same series, was not syndicated, aired on a different day and time, etc. Television series meet notability requirements. There's nothing more that needs be said. If I had seen this AfD, I would've been a keep vote, but that's immaterial. No number of differing votes can present an appropriate delete rationale in this particular instance. Robert K S (talk) 12:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question is answered in my FAQs. They're linked at the top of my talk page and in the editnotice. Why not check them out next time?

My role is to close the deletion debate in accordance with consensus there. I'm sure you'll understand that I can't be expected to know, less still evaluate, all the possible reasons that people who didn't see the debate could possibly have given. Deletion debates are open for at least a week to give everyone an opportunity to post their comment, and there has to be a fixed window for this otherwise nothing would ever get done. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the mover of an AfD supposed to notify contributors to the article so that they know about the discussion and can participate in it? JTRH (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's strongly recommended that they nominate the person who created the article (and this is automatically done in Twinkle and other AFD nominating scripts); it's encouraged that they contact other contributors, but this is often wildly impractical. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you're saying, in essence, "I went to the AfD, I saw three 'keep' suggestions and four 'merge' suggestions, I deemed that to be a consensus for 'merge', and I closed the AfD." Is that accurate? Do you understand why this is not a satisfactory answer? The rationale proffered in the first 'keep' suggestion is dispositive: "Not technically a tournament; it was a prime-time network show, unlike its syndicated parent. So this AfD is based on a false premise." Given that it was a 4-to-3 participation and that the "merge" suggestions offered no countervailing rationale, was there really consensus in this case? I understand there is some amount of quasi-automated bureaucracy involved in Wikipedia administration, but some minimal amount of attention and thought has to be paid when closing AfDs. Otherwise, what we have is chaos. Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, AFDs really only have two possible outcomes, which are "delete" or "not-delete". Anything that happens after a "not-delete" closure (e.g. merging, redirecting, etc.) is at editorial discretion, and you can raise the question at the talk page if you want to revise a merge to a keep. So I'm happy with my closure of this discussion; you're welcome to raise a deletion review request if you wish although they will just tell you the same thing, that revising from a merge to a keep can be done on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

J! Archive

Hey, I noticed you're one of the head archivists at J! Archive. I happen to have three episodes that aren't yet archived. How can I get them submitted? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

bpmod has graciously offered to DVD-itize your tapes for you. I would recommend corresponding with him privately. Thanks. Robert K S (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Jeopardy! origins

Please participate in a discussion here before making any other reversions. Sottolacqua (talk) 02:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't like tags either

Seems like we could do a lot of the same benefit with some sort of bland "page header", not the dropped box, that just reminds that this is user-created content of varying quality, that anyone may edit and that the talk page has more info.

Perhaps with the article "grade" listed prominiently (like GA and FA): knowing the grade is actually relevant content to the reader. Also if so displayed prominently, think there would be a little more energy and motivation around taking a C to a B or the like.

I'd be fine, just cleaning the page up, though, and not having the disclaimer either. I think the icon in left top corner is enough for people to know that this is not the New York Times. I mean do we REALLY need to remind readers that Wikipedia is not an RS? And what if there is a page out there that is untagged? The horror! What if some reader looks at it, without a tag to repel him and remind him the unfinished nature of WP?

It really seems like the whole attitude of leaving the tags reflects and attitude of the project not being designed to create usable product, but a place to play (for the editors, not for the knowledge dissemenation.) This isn't even getting into the psychology of leaving the tags and battling over them and all that. And of some of the worst editors in terms of good writing, in terms of researching real information, lording it over the content creators, with textbox turds.

On the Talk page having some section for issues, could be helpful, and instead of various boxes, have fields in a table or something, and some justification and date info.

I routinely come across pages where the tags are out of date, either because a page was upgraded (like has 70 refs now, instead of none) or because no-one is working on the page for 4 years and likely may never do so. In one case, the windsheild is cleaned, but noone has removed the spraypaint. In the other, people have shown that the spraypaint hasn't motivated washing. Really in both, can see that (as the tag not removed).

We need to get that stuff out of the article text space. It's discussion of the article drafting. Needs to go in talk!

I don't really like the rationale of the taggers saying no one uses talk either. That's coming from generally non-content heavy folks. Maybe they should really dig into some real content discussions. Not just use talk for user messages and policy battles.

TCO (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Will you allow me to reprint excerpts from them on my user page? Robert K S (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. TCO (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Even moving the tags to the bottom of the page would be an improvement

Although, they really ought to go in a penalty box in the talk page.TCO (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

coupla ideas

If you really care about it that much,

1. Write an essay on the topic, including some of the offsite criticisms.

2. Set up some template for use on talk pages (penalty box for tags, but maybe a section for "type of English" and "type of footnotes" also). And just start using it. do it on articles you create. See if it goes viral...

TCO (talk) 06:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

Hello, Robert K S. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

[1] Diff, for the record. Robert K S (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Frank Capra

When there are errors in formatting or in the use of sources, they are corrected, in the most economical and effective means; typically, it is easier to rewrite malformed citations rather than wrestling with malformed citation templates on top of that. FWiW, the Capra cite in question directly links to a notation in the bibliography. Bzuk (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC).