User talk:SallyForth123/Archive 1

Archive 1

Hello SallyForth123, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! (→O - RLY?) 06:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

sprotect icons

If you think it is necessary to protect an article, you can request that at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Simply placing the icon on a page doesn’t do the job. --Van helsing 06:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I am able to detect when the tags and the database are inconsistent. If you check by logging out, I think that you will find that those articles are already semi-protected.--SallyForth123 06:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you’re right, sorry. Don’t see a problem with tagging them than. --Van helsing 06:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

Shouldn't Ted be doing this kind of work, since he doesn't have a job anyway? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the sprotect tagging? Who is Ted?--SallyForth123 23:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

How could you forget your husband? Are you having an affair Sally? Cmon, think of Hilary. --MichaelLinnear 04:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Buffalo Soldier

Sally, you are Buffalo Soldier.--SallyForth123 00:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[MOS and Essjay Controversy

I noticed that you have done some nice cleanup on that article. Unfortunately, some of the changes you have made will have to be reverted. Despite the practice that contractions are not "encyclopedic," one must not remove them from direct quotes; they are the original author's words, not the Wikipedia editor's. As well, I am unclear why you felt it necessary to put double square brackets around the term "sic," which has been correctly included to identify that there is a factual or spelling error in the quotation, but the error is in the quoted text and is not simply a Wikipedia editor's typo.

It would be lovely if you could go back and look at this yourself to identify exactly which changes need to be reverted. Thanks. Risker 02:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I am seeing that now. Thx.--SallyForth123 02:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that quotes are overrated. We should be writing in our style and making our own assertions. Quotes are rarely needed.--SallyForth123 02:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of those edits. I am somewhat indifferent to quotes; however, direct quotes can be particularly useful in highly contentious articles, as this article was during its development. Once it got to an essentially stable version, everyone pretty well backed off it for a few months; only in the past few weeks have editors returned to start smoothing the edges. I'm less fond of seeing scripts used to edit articles, to be honest. Almost every time an article on my watchlist is edited by someone using a script, there is a problem with one or more of the edits. I give you credit for taking the time to revert the "problems;" some editors have been extremely defensive, even when I've advised them their scripts have inserted spelling or grammar errors. Risker 03:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do not find that expanding out contractions changes the semantic meaning of a quote unless it is felt that the folksiness implied is significant to context. I find that ripping out the quotes frees the text for copyediting and, in the right hands, it flows better.--SallyForth123 03:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you use direct quotes they must be literal copies of what was said or written - not to be copyedited. Paraphrasing is ok, but then you need to use different words - not just expand contractions - in order to avoid plagiarizing. So either use exact quotes or restate points in different words. Tvoz |talk 06:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Your JS edits to Charles Darwin

Some of your well-intentioned WP:MOS edits were to direct quotes and shouldn't have been changed. Single square brackets can be used legitimately (for example to supply a word within, again, direct quotes) and shouldn't be changed on sight. This has the effect of creating redlinks where none was intended. --Old Moonraker 06:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. They are fixed now. Those squared brackets should really be [ and ] . The contractions are another matter. I am thinking of asking that that feature be turned off by default.--SallyForth123 06:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I noticed that you had been talking to the script writer on the issue. --Old Moonraker 06:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Same thing with Hurricane Katrina here. I can't undo your edits due to your subsequent changes. I would appreciate if you could fix the issues. You changed "don't" in a quote to "do not"; changed a ref link that happened to have "...sqf..." to "...sq ft...", changed square brackets (Kanye West's quote), and changed the indexing in the main category Category:Hurricane Katrina (since this is the main article for the category it shouldn't be indexed). – Chacor 13:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Your W article

I noticed your work on that article, and thank you for improving it. I do have a policy of not editing the page, and there also hasn't really much need to as it's pretty accurate. One thing the article is missing is mention of any of the the international publications that have done stories, which to me has been one of the more interesting parts of the experience. Most of these stories are not available through googling, but one can be found here. I also know that there was a version of that same story on me in the August 21, 2006 edition of Tages-Anzeiger and also in some Austrian paper. An interview with me was published German magazine Maxi and also in something billed as the Dutch equivalent of Wired. - SimonP 20:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Use email

Hi, if you want to inform a user of something that might be sensitive, please use private email. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Your post to SV

Hi Sally, your post to SlimVirgin's page was inappropriate. Please refrain from posting links to attack, harassment or outing sites, as persisting to do so could result in your being blocked. Thanks, Crum375 22:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought it was old news being back in October and all. --SallyForth123 22:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This is your very last warning. Whether you're doing it out of malice or stupidity, stop. ElinorD (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I am only responding to get rid of the orange bar at the top of my page.--SallyForth123 23:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Your edits

Hello. Please could you try to stop correcting colloquial abbreviations like "can't" and "won't" when they appear in quoted speech? You changed "I'd say" to "I had say" in a quotation appearing in the WP article on Dirac. Didn't you notice that this had no meaning? Also many editors often use square brackets which are neither wikilinks nor url references, just square brackets. These should be left as they are. For example in a quotation [...] is standard notation for omitted text. Finally it does not seem appropriate for a novice editor, with less than a week's experience, to change the template on the Bogdanoff affair. Please leave things like this alone; there is a long and complex history behind this template, independent of any editor's aesthetics. --Mathsci 00:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. It took five days for somebody to even notice and disagree. I just felt that the order of the sentences was wrong. I am using a script by AndyZ that is currently protected. I guess I am going to have to customize that script and disable the contractions removal. I will leave that article alone except that I noted that it is only semi-protected.--SallyForth123 00:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The silver padlock is fine. If you look through the history, the article or on the web, you'll see that in this particular high publicity case a lot of dubious games were played. The wording was specific to the chain of events that made it necessary to put up the template; it wasn't generic. Have fun with your future editing! --Mathsci 02:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Chip Berlet

Sally, I have reverted your edits there as I can see multiple problems. Are you using some kind of automated script to do this? I see you have introduced both unsourced claims as well as simple grammatical errors. I suggest you explain what you plan to do on the talk page first, and if you are using automated tools, to ensure they don't introduce mistakes. Thanks, Crum375 00:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Honey, that is all WORK you are throwing away. I am cleaning it up. There were many duplicate links and unlabeled links. Here, you try THINKING about and EDITING the work and TALKING about it on the talk page, rather than just hitting the undo button.--SallyForth123 00:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sally, I am assuming that you are really sincere and are really trying to help. However, by doing these massive edits with apparently some automated tool, you have introduced errors, and you have also added unsourced material. Since this is a biographical article of a living person, you need to tread very carefully. I suggest you discuss your proposed changes first on the talk page, and try to get consensus. Thanks, Crum375 00:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That articcle had many unlabeled links that were very ugly. Would you please inform me of the tool that would do what I just did to the Chip Berlet article? I would much rather use it that to have manually perform the clean-up that I did just. My edits were not massive: they were all trivial. If you wish to WORK on the article rather than just hit the undo button, then be my guest, but please ensure that your changes increase the quality of the article.--SallyForth123 00:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sally, I am assuming you are a human editor. Can you explain to me why a human would make this edit? (look at the ing after 'think tanks support'). There are many such and similar examples. Crum375 01:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That was done by User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js. I agree that its over-zealousness about contractions is burdensome. I am trying to undo its changes in that department before I commit the changes, but I have missed a few. Thanks for pointing that one out.--SallyForth123 01:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

So now there is a tool? Well, you may want to teach it that Chip Berlet is one person, as in singular (see the first sentence). I suggest you take it easy on this article – if you want to edit it, do it in small bits, that are easy for others to inspect and follow. If you make massive edits, they are much less likely to be accepted. Crum375 01:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Your message at I-35W Mississippi River bridge

I spotted your message about tense on the talk page and summurized it below the other hidden message I left in the collapse section earlier. Hopefully, the hidden messages will make the cleanup work on the article easier when all the drive by editors leave. That was a good catch, I commend you for thinking about it. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Explaining reversion

Hi, I reverted this edit. It removed several references and made the sentence incongruent ("as two of Minneapolis' other spectacular catastrophes", then only one listed). ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, reading it again the second point I made was wrong, sorry about that. I'd still like to add the references, though. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

To me, this is all just Strunk and White.--SallyForth123 07:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Multiple minor edits.

Could you please tag edits reformatting or naming (but not changing) references as "minor"? I trust you to do it correctly (until proven otherwise), but it's difficult to find the substantive edits among all your formatting changes in such articles as 9/11 conspiracy theories. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I will try to remember to do that. BTW: I am doing meaningful work by giving those URLs titles. It makes it possible for humans to remember the information, rather than just computers. Again: what I am doing is work: if I was just reformatting them, I would certainly not be doing them one at a time. The reason I am doing them one at a time is because <ref>'s can be easily previewed while one is editing sections.--SallyForth123 16:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Understood, and your edits are appreciated. I just think that they're "minor", as we define them. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sally - good work on the 9/11 conspiracies article. You might make better use of the Preview button though! :) Corleonebrother 18:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC) I am working on <ref>'s within sections. They did not preview and the article is too big to work on as a whole.--SallyForth123 18:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah - I did not realise the refs do not come up on the preview. Sorry to disturb! Corleonebrother 18:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Since refs don't come up in preview please check the work after saving it if you're going to work in sections, or don't section edit when you're doing refs - it's hard for other editors watching the pages to follow the changes this way. Tvoz |talk 14:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There IS a way to preview refs while editing a section - just add

<references /> 

at the bottom of the section, do a preview, and then delete that text before saving. Admittedly, this may be extra work that you don't want to do, but I mention it because you might find it useful if you're fixing a lot of refs in a section. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia might not be a how-to, but it certainly needs one. Thnx.--SallyForth123 01:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI: I also changed my preference to default to my edits being marked as minor.--SallyForth123 01:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is an index. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, you do the work

I invite you to inspect Driftless Area and change it according to your taste. I don't think you are into geology, but it is involved, along with the last ice age. The Driftless Area explains all those canyons west of Minneapolis-Saint Paul.--Ace Telephone 08:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		Here, have a barnstar. I know you've been through tough times here on wikipedia Pheonix 21:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Barack Obama

You've been asked several times here to stop changing the words in quotes and titles of articles in citations in an effort to remove contractions - you have invoked MoS, but I think you need to read it again. It says: "In general, formal writing is preferred; therefore, the use of contractions, such as “don’t”, “can’t” and “won’t”, is avoided unless they occur in a quotation." Two points: 1) you never change the words inside of a quote - it should be a literal transcription of what was said or written, and 2) contractions are not banned from Wikipedia text - they are to be "avoided". Sometimes they might work in an article. It would be helpful if you would stop doing this and if you would go back over your edits and revert any more incorrect ones you made, if editors haven't noticed them yet. Thank you. Tvoz |talk 06:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I am going to focus on non-biographical stuff for a while. I am torn between making my own copy of that tool and getting someone to disable the contractions checking. The prob. is that it is protected.--SallyForth123 09:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I went and figured out all the steps I have to go through to fix the script. I had to add a feature with I am now using in my User:SallyForth123/monobook.js. I don't do contrations anymore, except in this sentence.--SallyForth123 23:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Planetary habitability

I realize that the page had been in need of a ref overhaul, but I do not feel merging the notes and refs is an improvement; it reduces the readability of the notes. Could you pull them back out separately? Marskell 14:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, nevermind; I have done it. I need to properly do up the refs now. Thanks for working on it. Marskell 15:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review of [[Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg]]

Here is a notification that the deletion of [[Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg]] is being reviewed. The DrV may be found at this location. "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions. This includes appeals to restore pages that have been deleted..." In the DrV, users may discuss relevant issues in attempting to form consensus, as well as assert Uphold Deletion or Overturn Deletion, with a specific rationale for the stated conclusion. ... Kenosis 16:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: AndyZ/peerreviewer.js

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

George H. W. Bush minutiae

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article George H. W. Bush minutiae, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Realkyhick 02:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Geolinks

I don't think unprotecting the three templates is the best option. There are sandbox templates that can be freely used to test and standardize the templates (see: Template:X1 ... Template:X9) or you can use user subpages User:SallyForth123/sandbox to test new code. Once you have new additions / changes, I'll be more than happy to make the desired edits. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, then I will go all-out to get these things up-to-date.--SallyForth123 18:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Can I delete the old templates? Cheers. --MZMcBride 23:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Thnx.--SallyForth123 23:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

JS peerreviewer

I'm not sure if this is the tool's fault or your own, so I'm posting this here as well. I noticed the use of this tool on Abortion, and a few errors showed up. First of all, Abortion is the parent category for Category:Abortion, and therefore the category was piped to show as the parent cat. The JS edited the category to remove the piping. Also, bracketted words inside of a direct quotation were converted into wikilinks (redlinks at that). See the diff and the diff of my fix. On another article, History of Georgia Tech, the word "Century" was decapitalized, even though it was in a title of a book, and was reverted by someone else. Thought you may want to know.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

A proposal has been made to merge Replacement I-35W Mississippi River bridge into I-35W Mississippi River bridge. The matter is being discussed at Talk:Replacement I-35W Mississippi River bridge. Please feel free to comment. Thank you. Kablammo 18:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Driftless Area

Thank you for your brief excursus into my magnum opus. I've done some more work, but especially would enjoy yours. I am at a halt, where I don't know any more, but this is such an article that should be a Featured Article. --Ace Telephone 02:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Again thanx. The see map bit brings up a problem, as I think the map is a copyvio (I've seen an earlier version of it elsewhere). The map is good, tho'.--Ace Telephone 06:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow

I thought your account was compromised or something! LOL. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I am tryingto use PWpush.pl from Wikipedia:Tools/Editing_tools. It has... bugs.--SallyForth123 10:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. You might want to do that in a sandbox area before a trigger happy admin blocks you though. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Changes to time format on STS-118

Dear Sally, please review the talk page of Talk:STS-118, as the time formats are in work to be standard as written by NASA, to retain consistency for the WikiProject Space missions. Also, the format is lower case, not one lowercase and one upper case, as you've changed it to. See WP:MOS:

12-hour clock times end with dotted or undotted lower-case a.m. or p.m., or am or pm, which are spaced (2:30 p.m. or 2:30 pm, (Please note that either using periods, or not using periods, is appropriate per MOS, as long as the standard is held throughout the article.)

So, rather than 2:30 P.m. it would be either 2:30 pm, or 2:30 p.m.

We've discussed this on the talk page per the project's goal of standardizing missions, and decided to use the format used by NASA, which is p.m./ a.m.

Thanks for your help and understanding! ^Ariel♥Gold 06:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit: Just noticed you changed the caps, thanks! ^Ariel♥Gold 06:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

My bot-like changes

For those of you noticing my bot-like activity, please note that the mess I am cleaning up was created by a bot Wikipedia talk:Bots/Archive 4#rambot

Simultaneously with this I will be adding Template:Mapit-US-cityscale templates to the external links section of every city that has GPS coordinates listed.

and it should be undone by an informal bot.--SallyForth123 23:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What's going on at the Australian ones? There was never a terribly clear consensus to shift to Geolinks in the first place, which is why we've been creating them at Mapit in case it ever moved back, and as both work anyway it was never a problem. Orderinchaos 00:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The reality of usage is that Mapit-* lost and Geolinks-* won overall in the English Wikipedia. The only Mapit-* template that got more than a few thousand usages is Mapit-US-cityscale. I have asked User:^demonBot2 to do those.--SallyForth123 00:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, after reading, there was in fact never a consensus established to move - seems some user decided to do it on 5 April 2006 and everything has proceeded ever since as if it never occurred (with most Australians using the Mapit- template). I'd appreciate that this process stop until consensus is reached - forcing it like this is not fair on anyone (my watchlist is currently mayhem due to these changes). Re your reply since (we edit conflicted) - that is your interpretation. A mass change like this should have at least attracted a post on the relevant template's talk page, or at WP:AWNB Orderinchaos 00:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, stopped for now. There are only 400 left.--SallyForth123 00:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This is really a ridiculous situation to be in. Now we have to get them changed back. :( Orderinchaos 00:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

But it is a redirect. We are no longer talking about function, just usage.--SallyForth123 00:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, previously, they were split evenly between Template:Mapit-AUS-suburbscale and Template:Geolinks-AUS-suburbscale. Is that really a better situation for the naive user who just wants to add the coordinates in the "standard way". First, there has to BE a standard way. And as you can see, I did not create the redirect. Really, what will be accomplished by putting the Mapit's back except confusion for the vast majority of other users? Oh sure, you and I figured out all the fine points, but to be useful, others need some degree of simplicity and standardization. As fas as my "botness" goes, I really just want that official robot to focus on the big job of Template:Mapit-US-cityscale, which is about 20,000. All of the bigger US cities are already using Geolinks-*. It is just the bulk that were created through copy-and-paste (or a robot) and it is a redirect anyways. At least my approach got your attention. Would rather that the official bot has just gone ahead and your input would be after the fait accompli?--SallyForth123 00:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we do things by discussion and determining what consensus is. The consensus on Australia, although never established, is to use mapit, and unfortunately with the few thousand changes you've pushed through this morning, there's no way to disprove what you've just said. The "official bot" wouldn't have been in any better position to make this decision for the community. It doesn't really matter to me what happens in the US, it uses a different template and the users over there can hammer out a standard that works within that community, and may well have already done so. Orderinchaos 00:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes there is a way: do the math. Count my number of changes and in your head add them back to the Mapit-* numbers. I have done about 1500 of them. There are now about 500 Mapit-AUS-suburbscale and there are about 2500 Geolinks-AUS-suburbscale. That means that previously, there were 2000 Mapit's and 1000 Geolinks. So true, there were more Mapits. But they are a redirects and the rest of the English-speaking world has clearly gone in favour of Geolinks-*. Anyway, why would you want to go through a redirect when you can go to the real template? From the talk pages (which I consolidated into one place), you can see that there was a consensus process a year ago and the Mapit's lost, but nobody bothered to clean up mess. I also did some re-scaling on the Geolinks-US-* templates and I was wondering how you liked it. I did have to go through channels because those templates are protected and I am not an administrator.

Just looked into this btw - after completing the reversions, with no other changes, there are 2020 mapits and 415 geolinks, as was the case prior to 10 August. Orderinchaos 04:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

So now that the crisis is over, are you going to change the other 500 as well, so that Australia is using one name? You might even want to switch the roles of the redirect. Or, I suppose we can all just continue to make no progress two years after the matter was declared resolved. I mean, really, why did that chap use an exclamation point when he wrote Don't use these anymore!, I wonder.--SallyForth123 05:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll raise a discussion at the relevant place to get the April 2006 move reversed. There really isn't any reason to change the Geolinks- ones as they will still work (also, that may be the first place US/Canadian editors come looking for our one, so it wouldn't hurt to maintain a working redirect to the correct location), and most of the Australian editors do use Mapit anyway (most of the above 415 seem specific interest, such as national parks, and we may be doing other mods on them anyway when more research becomes available to fill them out as many are basic stubs). As for the comment as linked, it didn't seem to mention the AUS template, and may have made more sense in its home domain where the issues may well be quite different (we're lucky in having one coordinated project with subprojects for an entire country, apart from the small ones, only India has a similar situation.) Orderinchaos 07:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the some of this discussion should be happening on the corresponding Template talk page.--SallyForth123 07:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion here. There's never been *any* discussion about the Australian one. Some person moved it in April 2006 without asking anyone, and the links to Geolinks from my personal editing experience emanated solely from a couple of now-retired editors from WikiProject Sydney, while every other subproject used Mapit, and indeed so did many Sydney articles. The rest of us had been using mapit the whole time. From conversations elsewhere (when I raised the "why are we going to a redirect" thing), I'd gotten the distinct impression it was moving back in the near future due to the general Australian antipathy towards the new name. Orderinchaos 01:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to change the subject, but I would really like to see the Geolinks-* template reflect the scaling that is performed by http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/geo/geohack.php and also the entire Template:coord scheme as described by Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Parameters so that the other editors get the (fake) impression that these three schemes were design with due consideration of each other and in the spirit of teamwork.--SallyForth123 01:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been involved in the coord template as well, but don't quite understand what you mean re scaling. Orderinchaos 01:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is the initial scaling that you see when you just click on the links offered by the Geolinks-* templates. It seemed to me that, for the city-and-smaller templates, there were three classes of size as defined by Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Parameters: city, airport, landmark. I choose to scale them to the Geolinks-* city, street and building. (Geolinks-US-street was way off). Note that for links that lead to http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/geo/geohack.php, there is a different set of assumptions made about scaling for the various services. Anyway, I talked about it in Template talk:Geolinks-US-streetscale. Please join in the discussion there.--SallyForth123 01:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

OUCH! z=19?? No wonder you thought it off the wall. I changed the Aus one to 14 (from 11ish) a few weeks ago and left an edit summary saying people could change it back to 13 if they didn't like it. Anything higher would be silly unless it's specifically a building one is looking at (and with Google's patchy coverage, wouldn't even work in many areas - would just give "no zoom at this level" or some similar message) Orderinchaos 07:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It was a deliberate decision to zoom to the limits of the technology. Just take a look at the content of WLH for that template. You have got buildings and ships-at-anchor, etc. That is what people want to see. They want to see the building rather than some little dot in an urban maze. They can always zoom out zoom out if they want but if they were reading about a particular ship and now they want to see the satellite picture of, i suspect that they will not bother zooming out much because they will not care what surrounds it. Now, buildings like schools are more intimately related to their surroundings in some cases. Still, I think that people will appreciate having some of the burden of adjusting zoom relieved: most people want to see how far they can zoom in.--SallyForth123 07:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

One option may be to consider having one template and parameterising - e.g. a template I did to create references, {{LandInfo WA}} has a fairly good example of parameterisation so I didn't have to create three templates while at the same time didn't have to trust users to make decisions, they enter "m" and it "knows" what to do. Orderinchaos 08:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been very reluctant to respond to this suggestion of yours because I am looking for easy, cooperative collaboration. You spent three hours undoing what I had done for no reason other than to restore the status quo. I understand parser functions but I see no need for such extremes to simplify the situation. Do whatever you wish, but please consider that if you create any new template code that you should document it clearly. I note that you advertise that you understand ParserFucntions in User:Orderinchaos/UB.--SallyForth123 20:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply, as I'd taken this page off watchlist a week ago - it was only a suggestion anyway. As it turned out, it precipitated a consensus amongst Australian editors that mapit is indeed the preferred wording, and the template's now been moved back to its original name with geolinks working as a redirect for those familiar with the US/Canadian convention, so it seems the issue's now resolved. ParserFunctions allows a lot of flexibility because you can effectively have one template that stands in for three, and if you change the code in one it carries through to all three and hence there are efficiency benefits for maintainers. Orderinchaos 14:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I find this thread to be tiresome. Do as you see fit. Don't forget to use {{esoteric}} as appropriate. My expectation is that you will create a great deal of frivolous variety in templates that will increase the maintenance overhead and also increase the obscurity of how to get simple tasks accomplished with templates.--SallyForth123 14:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:REDIRECT#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken, it would seem best to leave it alone. :: maelgwn - talk 01:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledge the wisdom of that for articles — up to a point. But templates are a more complex. Shall we just let the rest of the users learn about these bifurcations the hard way? (See message below where the Geolinks-*-no-title templates exist but not the corresponding set of Mapit-*-no-title) The users already have to content with decimal fractions degrees vs. degreee-minutes-seconds and which template is going to set the "coordinates" HTML span. While User:^demonBot2 is for "deprecated templates", I tend to think of this as a case of deprecation and this Mapit-* vs. Geolinks-* naming variety is a case of deprecation. It effects many articles. I do not really accept that once pointless complexity and pointless variety gets a foothold, it cannot be simplified again. It is a waste of time and confusion for many others. At this point, a unified design for the user/editor would save time going forward. If we do nothing, then it is just a cop-out for the status quo.--SallyForth123 02:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

My issue wasn't so much the change itself, but the lack of consultation or any attempt whatsoever to gain consensus. If the consensus was that change was required, I would happily support it. However, Wikipedia is not dictated by bots ("official" or otherwise) or by US-based users - in fact, it may surprise you to know there are Australian foundation members, at least one bureaucrat, one or two arbitrators and checkusers, several OTRS users and around 60-80 admins. The whole idea of having WikiProjects is that each area looks after its own categories, and also provides a central point for consulting the project and users within it from the outside. This is useful for so many reasons - for example, avoids duplication and allows users to easily spot articles that look OK but definitely shouldn't be there, or improve ones which don't look OK but which should be there in a different form. Mapit-AUS-suburbscale has changed a lot and is distinguishably different from the other similar templates, and I don't see any problem with it having a different name if, as various have predicted, it returns to its original name and Geolinks- becomes a redirect to it. There's no reason for two different template names, and for the most part, Australia has been using only one. Orderinchaos 03:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, these templates are widely used and the three big Geolinks-US-* ones are protected. I interpreted that arrangement as a defacto consensus. Perhaps I gave too much weight to this section entitled: Don't use these anymore! which is dated 2005. Since the only remaining Canada one was easy to retire, I guess I thought of the only in-use AUS one has being in the same category. I have already consolidated all that talk under the one-talk-page-to-rule-them-all, which is Template talk:Geolinks-US-streetscale. I really do want input but things had become too bifurcated and I decided to be bold. I note that this is a red link and that Template talk:Geolinks-AUS-suburbscale had the relevant talk, so the Mapit-* thing looked dead and that many refs remained was, I assumed, just a matter of the fact that they were initially populated by a robot, which obviously does not give a fig about naming. I noticed that you earnestly went and were vigorously undoing the edits. I apologize if this incident disturbed you but I had no other easy way of finding out who cared. I will try to be more careful.

Still, this area was, it seems to me, was particularly dense with minute policy gotchas that would be countered by the guidelines of WP:BOLD and WP:IGNORE and Grace Hopper's adage: "It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission."--SallyForth123 04:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Approval

If you want to do more bot edits, please get approved. :: maelgwn - talk 00:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

But I do not want to run a regular bot. This is a one-off.--SallyForth123 00:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

A bot is anything that does automated editing. To quote Wikipedia:Bot policy:

Sysops should block bots, without hesitation, if they are unapproved ... messing up articles, editing too rapidly, or running anonymously.

I think you successfully broke those two rules there. :: maelgwn - talk 01:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I am really not in that much of a rush. I will just let my request at User talk:^demonBot2 percolate through, unless you guys, now that I have your attention, want to PLAN what to do. BTW: I guess I am looking for coorperation, as opposed to just status-quo driven objections.--SallyForth123 01:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd heed maelgwn's comments - there are several admins of my acquaintance who would have regarded you as a de facto bot and blocked indefinitely, and you'd have had to go through unblock to get back on. I myself am an admin, and was thinking of doing the same, but decided to extend the benefit of the doubt given your account seemed to be making some human edits as well. I do appreciate that you stopped the edits when I posted a query here. Orderinchaos 03:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW: You might want to participate in the TFD I started on all the other Mapit-* templates at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Mapit-Canada-cityscale. Last I checked, it is four unanimous votes for deletion the whole kit and kaboodle.--SallyForth123 01:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Mapit script

This probably doesn't relate to the current discussion, but as it seems you understand the mapit stuff, I thought I'd ask you. I've noticed when using Geobox Infoboxes, the mapit line causes double coords to appear in the upper right corner of the article. (example here, and when it is removed, the situation is resolved. as seen here. If the Mapit line were added to all the US cities, those with the Geobox would have this issue. Aside from not utilizing the infobox to include coords (which seems a bit odd, since it is such a good infobox), is there a purpose to that {Mapit-US-cityscale} link at all? I'm not sure I understand what it does that the geobox doesn't do, they both go to Map sources/GeoHack if clicked on. Anyway, thought maybe you could clear up what they are and why they should remain on pages with infoboxes. Thanks! ^Ariel♥Gold 00:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That is the result of a lack of a unified design. There is only one "coordinate" location. Multiple templates attempt to fill in that location — some with decimals and others with degress/minutes — and, like Mary Poppins said, "In short, you get an awful mess." To sort it out, you have to choose what you want to display in that location and then, for the other template, find its variant that avoids trying to also set those "coordinates". For the Geolinks-*, that variant names is *-notitle. For the Coor* templates, the templates that start with "coor at" try to set the title and the others do not. Here, I fixed it. See Terryville, New York now. I do not really encourage the use of the Geolinks-*-no-title templates. It might be better to fix the Template:Geobox Settlement and siblings, but there are already 2000 usages, so I throw up my hands on that one. In the best of all possible worlds, we would get together (even now) and decide that only one kind of template should be settings the "coordinates" area. Based on current usages, that would be the Geolinks-* templates. For those who insist that some pages show degrees-minutes-seconds, they can use Template:coor at dms in the geobox/infobox (which, in my opinion, should have a single "coord" or "coords" parameter rather than the current variations.--SallyForth123 01:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hrmm, well admittedly, I'm not a "scriptie" person, so the creation of my own "box" is at this point, out of my range. I like the Geobox template (and I've worked with several types of town/city infoboxes) because it gives the largest range of options to fill in, and I really like the use of the map locators. It may be that those can be done with other boxes, but I've no idea how lol. I've found that most of the US cities are using {Mapit-US-cityscale|40.905281|-73.048601} (second {} set removed so it is visible), does that allow the use of the -no-title| modifier as well? I'll admit that I don't understand what a "Coor*" template is, and honestly I didn't understand a lot of your reply, lol. But it isn't as if I devote myself to fixing or adding infoboxes to all cities, but when I am doing "random article" review, I'll add them as I come across towns/cities without infoboxes. I'm definitely not someone to "fix" anything, nor am I someone who is involved in making templates lol. This is the one I use, and there is just this one page that I have found: Geobox If you have any quick, easy tips, or an infobox that works like the Geobox does (I love how it shows the US, then state, and where the city is inside the state) I'd love to try that instead. And thank you sincerely for the reply! ^Ariel♥Gold 01:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to reduce the number of variations. I discourage the use of Mapit-* because it is exactly the same as Geolinks-*. In fact, the existing Mapit-* templates redirect to the Geolinks-* templates, so do not worry about the effect of changing the name: there is no change in function. Again, see above discussion about how important name is to some people.--SallyForth123 01:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Heheh, yeah I read the discussion, but most of it went right over my short little head, so... Honestly, I do not even know what a mapit is, or what a geolinks is, what they do, or how they work, lol. And, I wouldn't have any idea how to properly write the reference, unless it is already included in the page. I'm definitely not into the "back end" of things as far as scripting. I only knew that once I'd put the geobox on, it made a double coords thing, so I messed around until I figured out how to get rid of that, lol. Since both were exactly the same, it didn't seem to me that removing the Mapit thing mattered, as the end result was exactly the same from a reader's point of view. I'm sure you're throwing your hands up in frustration, wondering how anyone can be so daft, and I apologize, (and don't expect you to explain, no worries!) but just wanted to let you know the reason I asked, as it was definitely not to criticize the use of one vs the other. (I truly didn't even know there were two options/scripts/whatever they're called). Anyway, thanks for helping me figure out how to get the double coords from the page without removing that script thing (whatever purpose it serves), and I'll do that in the future if I come across that issue again. Thanks!^Ariel♥Gold 01:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the Mapit-* set of templates were implemented first and, gosh, Mapit is a catchy name. But later some gourp standardized on Geolinks-* names and the Mapit-* templates fell into disuse mostly, but two of them had proliferated and I am exploring the possibility retiring them as well.--SallyForth123 02:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I saw your thing on TfD, and I followed the four links, and they all say "outdated" and refer to another page. (Again, realize I've no clue what a mapit is or a geolink is, lol) so I do believe you're doing the right thing. I considered voting on it, but I feel that since I've truly got no idea what they are, it really isn't something I'm qualified to offer an opinion on either way. However, just looking at it, since they all say "don't use this!" it seems to me, at least, only prudent that they be retired/deleted/whatever. Anyway, good luck with the project! ^Ariel♥Gold 02:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

RPM

I wiki-linked it in the paragraph above :) Didn't think repeat wiki-linking was necessary, and I'd put (RPM) after the initial mention, so that's why I called it RPM in the next paragraph. Just thought I'd explain my thinking there, lol. ^Ariel♥Gold 04:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Whistle register

I have reverted your change to Whistle register. It really does invariably result in edit wars and the article turning in to a pretty much indiscriminate list of singers (see WP:NOT) if we take out that comment. If you disagree, you are quite welcome to discuss the matter on the article's discussion page. --Yamla 17:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

mwpush

Thanks for the fix to mwpush.pl. Unfortunately it is one of the various proud tools I once used constantly and now have no current use for -- so it gets outdated. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 05:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

edit summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. -- Doctormatt 07:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

Thank you for your interest in Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. However, I have reverted your edits to the lead paras. This lead has been carefully edited over a period of time and your revision eliminates important features. Please avoid such major edits without taking the matter to the talk page which you should do if you wish to pursue them. TerriersFan 00:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Editing guidance

You removed "but they later accepted the possibility that she might be dead." which is an important qualification for the police's initial investigation". I am reverting this removal. If you remove it again it will be the fourth time and you will have breached WP:3RR. As a compromise I will add in your point about the parents not being suspects. Other editors can clearly see that you wish to remove "but they later accepted the possibility that she might be dead." so please await other views.

Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. TerriersFan 01:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

What the parents in Disappearance of Madeleine McCann have "accepted" is hardly factual: they could change their minds an hour later. I really do not want to know about such vacuous "facts" in the lead section. As long as they are not suspects, then their role in the story is about the circumstances around the "abduction" (alleged or otherwise) and their raising of publicity.--SallyForth123 01:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You have misread the sentence - it does not say what the parents have accepted the sentence states what the police have accepted. TerriersFan 01:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That may be what the police reported but the subject matter is still entirely the opinions of the parents, which I find the be very distracting in the lead section. Frankly, I would expect their optimism to vary week to week and even hour to hour.--SallyForth123 01:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please check the compromise wording I have put on the article talk page - this makes it clear that it is the opinion of the police not the parents and it is sourced. There is nothing in the lead about the opinion of the parents. TerriersFan 01:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have now reverted several other of your edits. I have explained each reversion under separate headings on the talk page. If you wish to press any then please argue your case under the relevant heading. There is always room for improvement in the article but every component of the content in it has been discussed and there is a reason for it. Before making further major edits, please read the talk page fully (including the archived talk page) to familiarise yourself with the reasoning then please discuss changes first. This is not a good time to 'Be bold'. Finally, if you want any help, or wish to know the reasoning behind something, please ask me and I'll be delighted to help. TerriersFan 03:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Coeliac disease

You removed the entire reference to Francis Adams' translation of the ancient text. It seems you removed it because the URLs have stopped working, but that is no ground for removing the entire reference. It would have been easier if you'd left an edit summary, by the way. Do you have an interest in coeliac disease? JFW | T@lk 08:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right. I have been dealing with too many {{cite web}} where the url is mandatory. Anyway, I found the archive.org thing (again) and a Google Books link as well.--SallyForth123 08:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Good catch, that Google Books entry! Shouldn't we make that the primary URL for this source text? I think I've just discovered a new toy! JFW | T@lk 11:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Pleas do as you see fit. The Google Books link is certainly faster.--SallyForth123 11:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

References

Please never remove broken references before looking them up in the Internet Archive Wayback Machine or Google Cache. It's destructive and harms the quality of the article. Reinis^talk 09:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I did look it up and saw that there was something on the wayback machine. But the assertion being made was so non-controversial that I figured it did not matter much. After all, a web page about a 150 year-old book that has been digitized. And a URL with the word "sandbox" in it is not encouraging.--SallyForth123 09:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to fix link rot, please do it right, and fix the links instead of removing them, because it helps the verifiability of articles more. Actually, I see you've been routinely removing links that have archives available, and whole references in some cases, e.g. [1], where you remove a helpful reference that's used in 3 places in the article. I don't think anyone can thank you for that. Also, I don't see any "sandbox" in the Darwin link or archive. Reinis^talk 09:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, just noticed that you restore the link in the next edit. Anyway, I hope I make myself clear. Reinis^talk 09:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I get the point. You might want to add {{User:TheJosh/ParserFunctions}} to your list of user boxes. This other guy User:Orderinchaos/UB seems loud and proud.--SallyForth123 09:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit Summary

Please could you get into the habit of always supplying an edit summary. Otherwise, other editors have to diff all your edits to see what changes you've made to articles they are watching. For Featured Articles, lots of people are watching for vandalism, etc. Each of them may waste time examining edits that could have been explained in the summary. You can change your User Preferences (Editing tab) to always prompt you to enter a summary. Thanks. Colin°^Talk 14:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC) Done. Thx for the advice.--SallyForth123 22:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability of James P. O'Donnell

A tag has been placed on James P. O'Donnell, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. WebHamster 00:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You should try to do your homework before tagging something as SD. This guy is notable. Look at the WLH on that page.--SallyForth123 01:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Pop-up Video

I provided that Wayback Machine link because the previous versions of the site contained comprehensive information that is no longer online. Also, I don't remember why I put in the wildcards anymore, but sometimes it's crucial to site navigation because the site used a Flash interface (making all internal links inaccessible) or because archiving was so sporadic that the whole site was not all archived on the same date, killing random links on any given revision of the page. –Unint 00:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that, since the wayback machine is a time-consuming tool to use, that you should point to specific dates and pages if it is really that important. Making the user slowly browse through old versions of the web site is possibly not worth the time. And also: are you actually trying to support some assertion in the brilliant prose?--SallyForth123 00:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I suppose it was partly motivated by having a convenient link for research purposes... I will make sure to factor in useability in the future, then. And I suppose broken-up pages can be used piecemeal in citation tags. –Unint 00:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Shrimp farm

Unfortunately, your changing the references has lost the page numbers. Not good at all. If you convert, do it at least in a way that doesn't lose information. Lupo 11:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The "page numbers" appear to be content-free. What information do they contain that is relevant?--SallyForth123 11:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I refer to page numbers. The last reference in section "Social changes", for instance, was "[Cons02, p47]", i.e., to page 47 in that report. See here. That info is lost now, which I find inacceptable. See e.g. Copyright in Russia for how we do this today. Lupo 19:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a page number of his own invention and a terrible idea. Why did he feel the need to put the page number in the label rather than with the rest of the citation? Almost nobody else does it that way.--SallyForth123 22:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, you're messing up the referencing completely. Stop it.

• Do not remove the dates references were retrieved: these are helpful to evaluate how current the information in the article is, and help finding the info again (e.g., in an archive).

I content that it matters much more when something was published than when it was seen on the Internet.--SallyForth123 22:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Do not remove "dead" links. Always try to find them through the [internet archive. Many of these old links can be found there, e.g. http://www-mkb.slu.se/mkb/sida/fiske.htm (even the PDF links work!). Also, sometimes links may appear broken to you (or to me) but work for other people (for instance, when there are outdated DNS caches).

In fact, why mess with referencing anyway? If it ain't broken, don't fix it. It wasn't broken, but now it is. Lupo 19:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Dead links in references waste the reader's time. If we have a reasonable expectation that the link will not work, then it should be removed. Those links are merely a convenience: what really matters is that the traditional citation in our article is complete because that is the only thing of lasting value. And your fiske.htm page offers the reader no more information than our citation does. That is nothing special about the existence of that web page. When it goes away, we remove our reference to it.--SallyForth123 22:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you overlooked this because there were other messages below. Page numbers, access dates, and several links are still missing, though. Lupo 22:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Keratoconus

Hello. You recently converted an external link in this article to plain text (and changed it slightly). I wasn't sure why you did this; additionally it is still listed under 'web articles', but now gives the reader nowhere to click on. Regards, — BillC ^talk 11:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

My error: I can see why you did it: the link was dead. I'll see if I can find where it now is, or an alternative. Failing that, it would be better to remove the text altogether. — BillC ^talk 11:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You can get as far as http://www.clsa.info/Registrar/catalog.php without paying.--SallyForth123 11:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

External links

Hi, please familiarise yourself with WP:EL. In general, apart from the subject's official site, external links should be avoided where possible. In particular please do not link to Bebo pages, since these are blogs, not reliable sources, nor to specific search engine results - the reader can search for themself on the search engine of choice. TerriersFan 16:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You would be a better administrator if you told me which specific articles that I have edited you are referring to.--SallyForth123 21:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)