User talk:Wtwilson3

Philly Building Collapse

No prob... fixed it. Thanks for the notice my friend. Kennvido (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:BITE

Good spot, and my apologies. I was dealing with a sudden tranche of vandals and got mixed up. Thanks for calling me out! — — Pretzels ^Hii! 19:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem at all, it happens to everyone. I was particularly surprised when I came to your talk page and found the Help Project newsletter. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 19:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

About users blanking their own talk pages

Hi. I just thought maybe you'd want to know this: Wikipedia:BLANKING#Removal_of_comments.2C_notices.2C_and_warnings Kind regards, — Ginsuloft (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but that page also says, in part, "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes ... any other notice regarding an active sanction ... For IP editors, templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address." And this blanking included several instances of these types. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 16:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:DTTR

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humor. Best wishes. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 11:30, June 12, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, you made me laugh. Sorry about that. I accept my trout. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 11:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

SPLC

Thank you for letting me know. I was trying to make it all look right and thought I had better do it in easily undone baby steps instead of trying to do too much at once and screwing something up. Boomermike (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Cher

Not sure how to use this talk back page, but I was questioning your undo-ing of my edit for the Cher page. Unless you can make Caesar and Cleo fit the context (which neither name is mentioned in any text on that page any other time other than Caesar's Palace) it doesn't work. Sonny's real name was Salvatore and Cherilyn was Cher. So if you're going to take away my edit at least put their real names down. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.158.76 (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Caesar & Cleo is mentioned 4 times in the article and the usage you removed fits well within the article. The best place to discuss this is the Cher talk page. If you want to discuss this further, please do it there so all concerned editors may participate in the discussion. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 22:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

New Age Shrine image

Dear Wtwilson3: The problem is not that two images cannot coexist. The poblem is that the Shrine image is completely out of place in the Political Movement section of the New Age article. By contrast, the AmericaSpeaks image relates directly to the text around it, as called for by the Wikipedia style manual; see MOS:IMAGELOCATION, paragraph three, first sentence.

If you would ike to retain the Shrine image, I suggest moving it to one of the first two or three sections of the article. - Babel41 (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not that I want to retain the image, I just felt bad removing the image. It felt a little like biting a newcomer. So I wanted to keep the image if possible. I'll let the original poster decide what to do with it. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 23:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember the feeling, and still have it sometimes. But here the person was violating an unambigous Wiki rule - images must connect to the text at hand. I have now moved the Shrine image to the History section / development sub-section. Hopefully someone wiser in New Age spiritual lore than I will assess whether the image is worth keeping. - Babel41 (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland

Re: the Ireland thing - it's pretty clear that recently the Republic of Ireland has supported America in its war effort and historically has supported the UK in WW2 (as the irish free state) So it's neutrality is a bit dubious. It is officially neutral, but is clearly in favor of some sides more than the other! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.209.212 (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2013‎

While the neutrality of the government might be suspect, the neutrality of the article cannot be. For more information, please see WP:Alleged. Also please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes like this: ~~~~. If you would like to add a section on controversy to the article, please discuss it on the talk page. Thanks. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 12:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest on The Lone Bellow

The page The Lone Bellow was having content copied from the band's website by 12.233.96.228 an IP associated with the band's label. After I called this out, and after being reverted a couple times, a new user Dougster333 popped up and started doing the same thing. In order to avoid problems with conflict of interest and copyright violations is there anything more I could/should do? —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 18:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I have given the editor explanations of some points regarding conflict of interest, copyright, and neutral point of view. That may be enough to get the point across, and if the problem does continue then feel welcome to contact me on my talk page, so that I can consider whether administrative action needs to be taken. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I have the user and the relevant articles on watch. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 12:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

List of LGBT characters in film and radio fiction

Hi there, just thought I'd drop you a line that I'd removed Castiel from List of LGBT characters in film and radio fiction‎. He's not an LGBT character, but various IPs are constantly trying to add him and Dean Winchester to various LGBT lists for months now. Most of this activites seem to stem from tumblr, where I'm active as well, and they have movements to try and add them to wikipedia to add legitimacy. Neither character is LGBT, as far as the actual show goes. Thanks! AD (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I saw so many people trying to add it, but doing it wrong, I wanted to help. I'll be on the lookout for these in the future. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 02:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI

wikt:abbreviate

My word choice was correct. Srnec (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

New Question

I don't know how to even use the talk feature...I'm really confused. How do I actually use air quotes in a new wikipedia article? Air quotes become italics, but I really just want air quotes.

Dispute comment

Hi. If it's no bother, could you weight in on this post of mine regarding another editor's content removal? I'm not expecting much understanding from them, so an outside opinion would be greatly appreciated. Dan56 (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 19:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The minor edit box is automatically checked with the MOS scripts I have uploaded (general formatting, dash fix, etc.). This removal was of an unnecessary chart publisher name, and this was also an MOS/punctuation change. Dan56 (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The script should not be marking a removal of content as minor. Even if the content should be removed per a Wikipedia policy, all editors should be aware of it. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 20:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to bow out of your edit war. Both of you are guilty in some way of exacerbating the situation, and I'm not going to be able to help. Good luck, and I really do highly recommend you avail yourself of official channels per WP:Dispute resolution. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 21:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion re Ulster Defence Regiment

The discussions between myself and Werieth were about the Ulster Defence Regiment but have been conducted elsewhere.

There are two discussions here: User_talk:Cailil which are the most telling.

One here: Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Proposals

Several here (some archived): User talk:Werieth

And here:Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion#File:UDR_Join_70_47r.jpg

There may even be more. There has been so much it's getting confusing but it remains that the content on Calil's page is the most informative as per this case. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Will you be reopening the case? SonofSetanta (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Me? I can't re-open anything. I responded to a {{helpme}} notice. I'm just a regular user, you're already dealing with at least one admin on this issue. You should stick to that path. Using {{helpme}} is just going to get you a regular user to help. If you need an admin use {{admin help}}. I'm bowing out of this. In the future, please don't use {{helpme}} for issues already being dealt with by a sysop. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 17:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Paul Giustiniani

Hello Wtwilson3. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Paul Giustiniani, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This is likely notable - I found a few mentions in Google Books. If you still want this deleted it should be discussed at WP:AFD. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry

I was being rude on my talk page, that's why I deleted it. Sorry, man. Didn't mean it.Justaguy120 (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. I could see you were just venting, so I did not get upset. I know how frustrating this all can be at first. I also thought if I replied to your deleted comment that it might serve to remind you that nothing is ever truly deleted around here because the history is always there. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 18:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm releived yo hear that. aI realise that could've hurt someone. Justaguy120 (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Justaguy120 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

I'm very sorry.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Really, no problem at all. Thanks for the cookie. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 00:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Stereotypes of Americans

That reeks of censorship, sir or madam.

When you say 'talk page' do you mean your own personal talk page? Because as far as I can figure out, the only way I can talk is by performing edits. Which doesn't mean that I'm trying to be a jerk, but rather that wikipedia is not extremely user-friendly, nor intuitive.

Incidentally, calling all American women materialistic sluts is something akin to calling all African-Americans lazy, stupid apes. They are both extremely insulting. It's one thing to profer opinions, but another to be sexist, chauvenist, and hateful.

Perhaps you will think I am over-reacting. But, I read a statistic somewhere which said that 80% of wikipedia editors were men. I strongly suspect that the person who wrote that portion of the article was a man. I also strongly suspect that you are a man. Not that there's anything wrong with being a man, as you can't really help it, but it does pose a problem in that you are unaware of the female perspective. You may be unaware of other perspectives as well, but you are definitely unaware of the female perspective.

But to the offending article itself: it profers an opinion which not only is deeply critical of an entire gender, is poorly cited. Some comedian somewhere called American women sluts. That is not evidence. A study would be evidence. Even a paper, with proper arguments and such, would be evidence. But so far, you do not have evidence, and this is because I'm pretty sure that you are blatantly wrong. And this is what bothers me the most: that you are wrong, and that you are influencing other people to view American women as money-hungry whores, and you really should know better.

Thank you. Dailyshampoo48 (talk) 03:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

That's how talking works around here, you edit the talk page. And I meant the article's talk page. Sorry I was unclear. I will respond in full there later today. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 11:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

"Bill, it is not so easy to find the talk page from the main article. Perhaps you should provide a link on the page itself.

Dailyshampoo48 (talk) 05:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I usually do, sorry I forgot in this case. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 10:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Kirkby-in-Ashfield Central railway station

Dear Bill

Thank you for giving KiAC the once over. I welcome constructive comment, and take your action as being in that spirit.

I have two problems with what you have said and done:

• I was taught years ago that comments on someone's work or actions should always include specifics and concrete suggestions or recommendations for action. Simply tagging an article as crap (however politely put) gives me no hint as to how to improve it. Referring me to a general tome on style is only slightly better. What would be more helpful would be to give specific examples (two, usually) of things which are crap and show how they could be better done.
• I have gone to great lengths to apply what I understand to be "Short citations" within the Harvard referencing method (sorry if some of that terminology is imprecise.) In this I have been poked with a stick by Redrose and Lamberhurst. It is highly likely that I have made individual errors, such as mis-typed authors' names and the like, but I reckon I have remained true to the approach and that the work I have done on KiAC is true to that approach.

Could we please look at KiAC's references? There are six citations overall, all six refer to numbered pages in specific works and each of the works is given a full identification in Harvard style - author, title, publisher, year and ISBN

Please let me know what is unclear.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best wishes, Dave DavidAHull (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry the advice wasn't specific enough. There's nothing wrong with the citations per se, but I felt they would be better if they were in the more usual method of citation used around here to have the references in the body of the work and {{reflist}} at the bottom. Also some of the reference are related to footnotes, and some are not. If a reference discusses the subject of the article but isn't tied directly to the text in the article, it might better be called "Further reading" rather than reference. As to the tone of the message I sent, it's a template sent by the page curation tool. I should have then edited the message to stay within the spirit of WP:DTTR but I did not. Sorry you were offended. And I did not call the article crap, just suggested an improvement. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 23:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I was not offended, but I'm still perplexed. a. you say it would be better "to have the references in the body of the work and {{reflist}} at the bottom", er, aren't they? b. You say that "some of the reference are related to footnotes, and some are not." Without giving any example, let alone an example of one which is and one which isn't, I'm once again faced with a refined version of something vague and no idea how to improve it. The article's ref 1, gives the source of a factual statement, ref 2 gives the source of a factual statement, refs 3 & 4 give places where the reader can see evidence of the statement, ref 5 gives the source of a factual statement, ref 6 gives a place where the reader can see evidence of the statement, ref 7 gives the source of a factual statement. Please tell me which of them are and which aren't "tied directly to the text in the article". Best wishes, DaveDavidAHull (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I was unclear. The article uses short citations and has the References section broken into two parts, "Notes" and "Sources." This is an uncommon (though not prohibited) method within Wikipedia. And my opinion is that it would be better to use the method shown in WP:CITESHORT. In any case, I've said my piece and will not be concerned with this whatever you choose to do. I can see you are an active and competent editor, and I'm sure you will continue to make this a quality article.

I would also like to add a personal opinion here. I don't think Wikipedia should allow so many different citation methods. In any other publication one can expect the entire publication to cite sources in the same way. I believe there should be one standard that we all use, to avoid confusion for editors and readers alike. And if I were asked my opinion, I would say we should all use the standard inline citation/footnote method shown at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Footnotes which is used by most Wikipedia articles. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 20:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinions. I'm sorry I can't get you to answer any of my specific questions to aid my learning. I have studied short citations once more and the only difference I can see between it and what I've done is that I've used a heading ("References") then two sub-headings ("Notes" and "Sources"), rather than just two headings, "Notes" and "References". I'm still in the dark about which references are and which aren't "tied directly to the text in the article". I've only been contributing in a sustained way since April, so I won't presume to comment on your personal opinions, except to ask what an article which is more substantial than Kirkby-in-Ashfield Central railway station would look like if the sources were printed out in full every time. Take Beighton Junction, for example, which I am three quarters of the way through writing, it seems to me that the list would become daunting to readers, whereas the WP:CITESHORT method presents the reader with something usable with one, clear sources list rather than some works being listed again and again. Thank you for your kind closing remarks. All the best. DaveDavidAHull (talk) 07:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Look at the references on this article: Inverness - This is what I'm talking about. One reference list with all the details in one place. References that are used more than one, like #39 on that article are named and only appear once in the list. This method is actually shorter and easier for the reader to understand. The method you use is a holdover from the days of print publication when footnotes appear at the bottom of each page and the sources at the back of the book. Considering the way an electronic article is laid out a single list is easier to understand. Try using the "Random Article" link and see how many articles you find that use the method you use. They are few. I hope that helps you to understand my opinion. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 11:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hurrah! Hurrah! Thank you for giving me something concrete to pore over, get my teeth into and learn from. Although I'm still in the dark about which references in Kirkby-in-Ashfield Central railway station are and which aren't "tied directly to the text in the article" by the simple act of giving me an example of your general thrust you have transformed your intervention from somewhere between useless and vaguely superior to actionable and helpful. The Inverness article does look pretty damned good. Warm thanks, DaveDavidAHull (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I hereby retract the "tied directly to the text in the article" statement. That was a misstatement of fact on my part. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 16:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been following this thread with some concern as I've helped Dave in the past in connection with a couple of the articles which he's worked on. Regarding the method of referencing used, I should point out that shortened footnotes are a recognised means of referencing as per WP:CITESHORT. For this reason, your addition of {{citation style}} to Kirkby-in-Ashfield was reverted by an admin. More to the point, WP:CITEVAR specifically states that personal preference is not a basis on which to challenge or change citation methods. In addition, the comments about not splitting the references section into "sources" and "notes" run contrary to WP:ASL. Furthermore, there are a number of featured articles which use this method; see for example Brill Tramway and its associated articles or even yesterday's featured article. The Inverness example mentioned is not particularly helpful given that the sources are in fact urls. Lamberhurst (talk) 09:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I am no longer following that article or concerned with it in any way. Have a good day. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 10:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Deprodded Classical Music Discoveries

Hello Wtwilson3. I have decided to remove the proposed deletion tag from Classical Music Discoveries as Wikipedia policy states that anyone, including the original author, can object to the proposed deletion and that such objections cannot be overridden by reapplying the proposed deletion tag (see diff:[1]). However, I do agree with you that the article has many issues. A quick Google search certainly brings the article's notability into question. If you still believe the article should be deleted, feel free to nominate it at Articles for Deletion and remember to notify the original author. While I understand that putting the article through AfD would consume more time than a simple PROD, it is important that we adhere to PROD policy and use it only for uncontroversial deletions. Thank You. Altamel (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know

...that you've been mentioned on my talk page. Probably best to let me have a look into it before posting there, though - things usually go better when an outsider surveys situations like these. (Not that I've seen whatever the problem is yet, mind.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

AfD

I noticed your question on the Classical Music Discoveries AFD and wanted to let you know; AFDs typically run for 7 days unless little interest is generated, in which case they may be relisted a couple times to attempt to spark some discussion. You can read WP:AFD and it explains how the process works. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 23:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Prestonmag. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Brinly-Hardy Company, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Sorry about that. My mistake. I'm having a problem with new page curation, especially any but the last 30 or so pages. I clicked this one to mark it as approved, not not to mark it unapproved. My fault entirely. Sorry. Prestonmag (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Help with Mahira Khan article

Well, thanks for guiding me..would you tell me about yourself? Zubin Irani (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Everything about me personally that I care to share with Wikipedia is available on my user page. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 17:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

BACKLOG OF THE WEEK Category:Pages with broken reference names

Hello - some editors fight off the vandal hordes, as I do repairing pages with citation errors. If I didn't - there would be a large backlog in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting and in Category:Pages with missing references list as in Category:Pages with broken reference names (more than 1500 yesterday). But it is impossible to work it alone. Do you know how to do a "Blitz" (excuse the comparision) to find willing editors to work on it. It is much more easier to repair references if you do it one hour, one day or one week ago after the errors were made instead of months and years after the error was done. Very, very difficult to find these errors.

Only with WikiBlame Search it is possible to find and repair such errors.

Best wishes --Frze ^{> talk} 08:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Backlog template made by User:TheJJJunk

Backlog status ()

Category	Current status
Pages with incorrect ref formatting	Not done
Pages with missing references list	Done
Pages with broken reference names

Best wishes --Frze ^{> talk} 04:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

New REFBot

There is a suggestion on Wikipedia:Bot requests#New REFBot for a new REFBot working as DPL bot and BracketBot do. I beg politely for consideration. Please leave a comment if you wish. Thanks a lot in anticipation. -- Frze (talk · contribs) 04:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you Bill W :) LynneMerkerGibson (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)