User talk:Sanchom/Archive 3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Avro Arrow
Hi Sancho, How are things in lotus land?. BTW, I wonder if you could take a look at the Avro CF-105 Arrow discussion page. It seems to have degraded into a discussion over the relative merits of the decision to cancel the Arrow. However, there is an editor that has been compelled to take the discussion into a bizarre turn. He actually backs up his own opinion with comments from an unknown IP address that can be traced back to... him? I don't need anyone to intercede except for maybe an administrator but take a look and give me your opinion. Bzuk 04:39 4 March 2007 (UTC).
Reply about me talking to a user
I have sent a message to Colemangracie about his Tim Sylvia edit.
Thanks, Takedashingen620.
Minor edits into the public domain
Responding to your question: I hadn't really thought about it. It was one tag between a series of tags I agreed in principle with. If I edit GFDL'd text and I place my edit in the public domain then there's only so many things that could happen. I suspect legal counsel would love to help. :-) —EncMstr 08:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
You deleted my addition to the Randy Couture entry
I'm still not sure why you did this.
It was difficult to reference the quote as the video of Tim Sylvia saying this is not kept at a static url via the UFC site.
It was one of the things that made Randy's last victory even more significant- that most people counted him as over the hill and Sylvia said himself that Randy had 'lost a step'.
Please revert to the previous version. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kenneth02 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
- If you find a source that says something like "one of the things that made Randy's last victory more significant was Tim Sylvia saying "....", then we can include this phrase. However, currently there may only be sources that say 1) Tim Sylvia said "..." and other sources that say 2) Randy Couture won. To add our own interpretation by saying that this combination made his victory more significant isn't allowed by Wikipedia policy. We must only report the facts, or interpretations published by reliable sources Wikipedia:Reliable sources. More specifically related to the phrase that I deleteed, it was because you said that Randy's win was "despite" Tim's comments. The definition of "despite" doesn't seem to warrant its use in this sentence. It implies something that isn't supported by reliable sources - either that Randy was unaffected by Tim's comments, or that Randy fought to spite Tim. It was really the use of the word "despite" that I thought wasn't correct. Sancho (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
WT:N
I've replied to your posting at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Recommendations. Walton Vivat Regina! 10:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I see what you're saying, and it's a good point - but I don't see what's wrong with the current version. It's true that the normal criterion is the "multiple non-trivial coverage" test, which is the one we usually apply when an article comes up for AfD. Yet at the same time, it is possible that someone or something might be notable despite not passing this test; there are some articles which do not present coverage in multiple independent sources, but which would never be sent to AfD in the first place, because their notability is self-evident. (A good example is Anakin Skywalker - all of the sources are Star Wars-related, but no one has ever nominated it for deletion. In fact, it was an FA at one stage.) It would be too rigid, therefore, to say "an article is notable only if it meets the criterion"; it works more the other way round, in that "if an article meets the criterion, then it is automatically notable". So I would argue for no changes whatsoever in the current guideline. Walton Vivat Regina! 18:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Aviation Newsletter delivery
The March 2007 issue of the Aviation WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism warnings
I mean I don't issue warnings, esp. to IP vandals, because in my experience, there are too many admins worried about offending people that they water down any attempts to warn vandals to the point of being absolutely useless. Even when I have been able to get an admin to block a vandal, another admin unblocked them shortly agterwards. Hence, USELESS. About 40% of my daily edits are spent undoing vandalism. If I wanred them all, I'd never get any real work done, and they would not get blocked anyway. Hence, USELESS.
Oh, there is an satirical essay on my user page whcih sums up views on the issue. - BillCJ 20:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Footnotes
I have no time to work on footnotes right now I will however work on rephrasing the selection then I will need your help with referencing. There are no guarantees that this will all get done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.113.253.9 (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
Reply to "Vandalism" Change
After taking another look at the article, I now realize that I should have labeled the change "(REVERTED UNSOURCED EDIT, POSSIBLY VANDALISM)". Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and I will make sure to be more specific. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BeanoJosh (talk • contribs) 00:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
Lester B. Pearson High School (Calgary)
The article Lester B. Pearson High School (Calgary) has a problem with sources right? Well all the information is correct because I have talked to the principal and he personally told me all the facts listed in the article. So there should not be a problem with sources.
- Please read Wikipedia:Attribution. Just because you know that the information is correct doesn't mean that it is appropriate for Wikipedia. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The material must be verifiable by a reader other than you by going to reliable sources that you provide in the article as described at Wikipedia:Attribution. The problem is that a random reader can't check that the material in that article are correct. Sancho (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Please take another look
Hi Sanchom,
I don't think my first comments on changing my vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Middle School were as clear as they could have been. Please take another look at the discussion. Thanks. Noroton 05:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ahh, I understand now. Thanks for the explanation. It does seem a bit late to take the originally appropriate route now however, since it's evolved into a full-fledged AfD discussion. I did leave a message on T's user page cautioning about WP:POINT, but I've done this before too: defended an article, but once realizing the strong argument against it, found other articles that should be nominated as well for the same reasons that changed my mind about the article I was originally defending. Sancho (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
West 49
Your changes did the trick. I've changed my vote to keep. Thanks, and good work! Realkyhick 16:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair use
Regarding your question on the help desk: Don't forget that the logo template requires you to post a fair use rationale as detailed in Help:Image_page#Fair_use_rationale. - Mgm|(talk) 08:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the guidance. How does this look now: Image:West-49-logo.jpg? Sancho (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: Twinkle
Thanks, I'll look into that. I certianly WANT to warn vandals, but doing it manually takes up way too much of my time, as I edit alot of pages everyday. Something like that would be a great help, if it does not place too much of a load on my old comp. THanks again.
- I tried it out on a vandal's edit, but I kept getting a script error. I'm running IE6 on WIn XP, so I'm guessing Twinkle is not ready for that browser. Do you know of a tool similar to Twinkle that works on IE, preferably IE6? My comp can't run IE7 without crashing at odd times, and I'm used to IE, really didn't like any other browser I've tried. Thanks. - BillCJ 05:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ah.. that's unfortunate. I just noticed that on the Twinkle page, it actually says that the scripts are only verified to work with Firefox and Opera. There are a few other scripts in the same category as Twinkle, but I haven't used them, so I don't know if they are as nice as I find Twinkle to be. They're listed here: Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit#Rollback scripts. It doesn't seem like they do the same kind of thing as Twinkle though. I asked the question at Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit#Twinkle-like script that works on Internet_Explorer. Hopefully somebody can point you in the right direction. The other obvious option is using Firefox, but that seems a bit much of a change just to get a script working. Sancho (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
THanks for checking on options for me anyway. If I have to, I could run Firefox simultaneously with IE, using IE for the majority of my edits. WHen I find a vandal's edit, I could copy the diff itno Firefox, and use the Twinkle features there. I'll try it out on my back-op OS, and see if it works the way I think it would. Still, I'd ratehr have something integrated with IE, but I guess we'll see what happens. Thanks again. - BillCJ 06:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
