User talk:Pointillist/Archive 2011
Leave me a message if you think we can improve Wikipedia by collaborating. Thanks |
I've deleted my entire watchlist...
...once again. I do this from time to time, to avoid "owning" articles that I've edited. So if you want me to do, undo, explain or apologise for something that happened before 14th February 2011, please leave a message here, as I won't see messages on other talk pages. Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC))
From Catenanuova (Italian)
I am beginning just now. Perhaps some corrections by editors who are more familiar than me with standard wikipedia formats for articles will be necessary. Amending (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- I would be happy to help with formatting. I suggest that you leave me another message when the article is ready for polishing. - 17:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your translations. I have updated them just a little – hope that is OK. - Pointillist (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- It seems that you did more (and better) work than I did. I had neglected several details that you valued well. I am looking for more statistical informations in terms of education, social structure etc, but it is not easy to retrieve them at municipality level and when one finds something, it dates back to 10 year ago like the entrepreneurship index I entered. Perhaps I can find the average ages of the whole population, and the detail for males and females updated to a recent year, maybe late 2009 or late 2010, in the ISTAT website. That's next thing I plan to add. I think also the unemployment rate is interesting. Best regards. --Amending (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Administrator intervention against vandalism
I just thought I would say thank you for your very thorough report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (diff) about 86.14.50.206. One of the many problems with cases like this is that someone in your position, having carefully checked the history and the nature of the vandalism, very often then just gives a couple of words. This means that at best an administrator wastes a lot of time duplicating the same checking, and at worst the admin takes a quick look and can't see that it is vandalism, so nothing is done. In this case you gave enough information so that I knew what to look for and was able to confirm that you were right quite easily, which was much better. I have blocked the IP for six months, which is very unusual for a first block, but under the circumstances I thought it was justified. You mention that very often people had silently reverted the edits without issuing a warning. This is perhaps the single aspect of cases like this that I find most frustrating. If only everyone would always issue warnings, cases like this would be stopped after a week or two, instead of going on for well over a year. Thanks again, and keep up the good work. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Many thanks for taking the trouble to let me know. BTW, when you click "edit" at WP:AIV the first thing you see is a rubric that says "brief reason for listing (keep it short)" three times in succession, which positively discourages long explanations like mine. Maybe the regular AIV-admins should re-think those instructions? - Pointillist (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
London countries of birth
Hi. Just to let you know (since you said you'd be taking the page off of your watchlist) that I've tried implementing a possible solution for the problem you raised here regarding the country-of-birth data in the London article. Cordless Larry (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. As I've posted on the London talk page I think you've hit on the "least worst" way of doing it. I'm glad you found a use for File:Polish-born people in employment in the UK 2003-2010 - chart 2369a at statistics gov uk.gif too. Hope we can work together again sometime. - Pointillist (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes indeed - it's been a pleasure. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
for this. :) Crazy times. The Interior (Talk) 08:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Nope
An attack similar to the one you saw on BioWare overloaded the pending changes queue of this article during the trial, and it was semi'd. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 16:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. Is the pending changes queue length inherently restricted? That isn't a point that has come up on in the community discussion, AFAICS. - Pointillist (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's not. All edits that were made since the last approved edit are in the queue, regardless of how many there are. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 22:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
File:Kirkham and Wesham railway station in 2008.jpg
File:Kirkham and Wesham railway station in 2008.jpg was cc-by-sa-2.0 when I copied it. The license can't be revoked, so it is fine to make derived works under the same license. Edward (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks: I'd already done the changes, but I like to embed the copyright details into the file and that's when I realized there was a discrepancy. All done now. - Pointillist (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Original Barnstar | ||
for your great insights at Wikipedia:ANI#Apparent_annual_creation_of_role_accounts_for_a_class_assignment. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC) |
- *blush* - Pointillist (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
tuition fees
are you editing this list incorporating from here? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12880840 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.245.57 (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi. Well done for adding the extra column. For the first few sources I used the individual BBC stories, but yes, I then moved over to using that summary table, which I've called <ref name="BBC_20110329"/>. I've only used the confirmed entries on the table, BTW, and I've finished now. I won't watchlist that page for future edits but if you want to discuss just leave a note on my talk page. Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 11:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
It's a good start! Is it advisable to link to uni announcements or news? which is more likely to remain active longer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.245.57 (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- The BBC seems to have stuck to the same story urls for years (you can still find relatively minor stories like this from 2001, for example) whereas university webmasters won't necessarily keep their site maps intact: e.g. there were problems with broken links when Oxford University reorganized their website last year. In general (not just on university websites) I've noticed that aged press releases often get moved from a "current news" section to an "archive" which of course breaks the links. There is a technique for overcoming this, which is to create an independent permanent archive using a service like www.webcitation.org. I've been doing that for some of the sources in the Kamco article, because some of the parties involved might find it expedient to delete records of what they said at the beginning of the myki project. But there's a more general point to consider: when a University makes an announcement it is a "primary" source, but when a newspaper or broadcaster covers it, their report is a "secondary" source. For Wikipedia's purposes, if a secondary source has a neutral editorial stance and a reputation for accuracy, it is better than a primary source. Hope this helps - Pointillist (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC).
Thank you for such an informative update. With so much focus on 'the now' I can totally understand why it may be easy to forget the important lessons from the past. Webcitation.org looks like a very good tool - I have never heard of anyone using it however so will be sure to pass this knowledge on! Regards.
Today's DYK
I'm not normally a fan of DYK, but today's April Fool selection (permalink) is superb. Congrats to all concerned. - Pointillist (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Block messages
Re [1]: Just for information, {{schoolblock}} will be the standard template displayed as a block message if users attempt to edit from an IP blocked with schoolblock, so there's no need to add it to the talk page (though it doesn't do any harm either). — Tivedshambo (t/c) 10:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for that: I've seen it used on other talk pages recently so perhaps Template:Schoolblock/doc needs clarification. - Pointillist (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's quite acceptable for it to be used on user talk pages as well, as an alternative to {{uw-vblock}}. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 13:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- But the text says "editing from your school, library, or educational institution's IP address is disabled", so it would have to be an IP user from a school's IP range, wouldn't it? Anyway, surely these points should be in the documentation? - Pointillist (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Gothic 2 - Fans' opinion of the game
It is somewhat impossible (or extremely difficult) to find a perfect reference source when stating what the opinion of the fanbase is. There are multitudes upon multitudes of videos on youtube that indicate this, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.237.153 (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for coming to discuss this. I know how frustrating it can be when you know something is true but you can't produce a reference for it, and you waste time trying to find one. The same thing happened to me early in my editing career and it is the pits. But the rules about sources do make sense in the long run: if no-one in the (reliable) media is saying X, then Wikipedia shouldn't say X either. This is more about creating an "audit trail" back to a reliable source than about absolute concepts of truth or accuracy, and if you try editing articles that are less personally interesting to you (e.g. some of the unsourced BLP backlog) it might help get a perspective on why we care so much about sources. Anyway, happy editing and let me know if I can help in future. - Pointillist (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm intruiged...
- Cloud computing Maurice Carbonaro (→See also: Added *Fuzzy logic. Please feel free to undo this change. Thanks.)
- Why? - Pointillist (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Hallo there... so you feel intruigued today...
- Anyway seems like someone had an answer to your question. Please have a nice weekend. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Kaligtasan
hi Pointillist, thanks for the note on Kaligtasan, i hadnt thought of sometimes using redirects instead of nominating something for speedy deletion, its a good idea. cheers -- The Elves Of Dunsimore (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Regarding a certain edit I made
I would like to have that edit (or at least my edit summary) removed, if possible. I realized I said some things which might cause problems that I would like to avoid. Please contact me as soon as you can, if you can help me out. I assure you, it's really something minuscule that will have no effect the article itself.
If you can assist I'll explain further. Goal2004 (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I can't see any issue in this list of your edit summaries. Bear in mind that when an article and its talk page are deleted, everything in their edit histories is no longer visible except to administrators, so perhaps the problematic item is already hidden. However, if the edit summary is still visible—perhaps because it was made when you were logged out or while logged in using another account—you'll need to ask an "oversighter" to consider removing the edit summary using RevisionDelete. I'm not an oversighter but you can find a list of them here. If I can help in any other way, let me know. - Pointillist (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Rollbacks
Hey Pointillist, you rolled back a couple of Dken5's edits (e.g., Antonio Freeman), I assume for missing copyright information. Would you mind leaving an explanation on their talk page? That editor strikes me as difficult, and in such cases it's best to overexplain, if you will--just in case trouble starts later on and they claim they didn't know or weren't told. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Done Thanks for dropping by. - Pointillist (talk) 08:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, thank you. Drmies (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
IP User 69.120.229.30
Hi Pointillist, May I please request your assistance with some disruptive editing made once again by 69.120.229.30. User continues to re-order episodes at List of Fanboy and Chum Chum Episodes. Previously, the user re-ordered S2 episodes by production code, even though all of the S1 episodes were not ordered in such a way, nor are the episodes for other TV programs. Also, if you happen to edit the user's talk page, I would appreciate if you'd consider removing your admonishment of my decision to issue an L4 warning, as I believe we came to an agreement that I didn't act too unreasonably. :) Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message. I struck out my 23:07, 14 April 2011 comment this morning but I haven't been able to think of an effective way to help with the wider question. I can believe that the edits from this address might be disruptive—they certainly were in the browser articles I checked—but I can't confirm that they really are. I don't know much about US children's TV series and I don't know which sources are reliable. Anyway there isn't enough debate to prove that the IP editor is being deliberately disruptive, rather than just being "bold": you haven't posted anything on the the article talk page since April 12th, 69.120.229.30 hasn't been warned for editing a TV series since April 15th and the regular editors from WP Nickelodeon, WP:Animation and Television don't seems to be concerned. If you'd like my advice (rather than assistance) perhaps a good starting point would be to find proper references for the article in question, because then you can use the normal wikipedia checks and balances to ensure the article is correct. If this approach is undertaken in a low-key manner, the article will cease to offer sufficient drama to keep disruptive editors interested. At the other extreme, you might stir up some activity by nominating the article for deletion, on the grounds that it is insufficiently watchlisted and a magnet for vandalism! Good luck - Pointillist (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
IP User 134.151.0.13
This unregistered user (134.151.0.13) appears to be a vandalism-only shared educational institution account, FYI. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. As you know (you seem to be an experienced editor) you can report a vandalism-only account at WP:AIV for an admin to consider blocking the IP address. However, in this case I'm not sure that a pattern of recent and ongoing disruptive edits and warnings has been established sufficient to support a block. - Pointillist (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Good work
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
To Pointillist: I've seen you around occasionally and you're doing good work. Keep it up! Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC) |
- Many thanks for that - Pointillist (talk) 08:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Dean Rowland
Can you please stop changing this page. All things mentioned about pineapple and celebrity boot camp had links to, to show that what is being written is the truth, which you have wrongly removed. The date of birth cannot be proved without a birth certificate, which i have right here...would you like me to scan it in? And lastly, with regards to the blog, the information was correctly linked to the daily mail article which quotes dean rowland and his blog, as well as the source from the Mr Paparazzi website, so yet again there is no need for removal. I shall expect you to revert your edits or i shall report you as this is vandalism. thank you.