User talk:KConWiki

Joe I 06:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 31 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Real Ambassadors, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Sean William @ 19:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Amyjacobson.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I notice you have expressed an interest in logic. Have you considered joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Logic? It is an effort to coordinate the work of Wikipedians who are knowledgeable about logic in an effort to improve the general quality and range of Wikipedia articles on logic topics. We at the project invite your participation and correspondence. Be well.

Gregbard 21:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:MichelleMadigan.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. There is a discussion about the Judd Winick article's length. Would you mind weighing in with your opinion on its Talk Page? Thanks. Nightscream 07:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on The Truth Laid Bear, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because The Truth Laid Bear is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting The Truth Laid Bear, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 07:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Nothing: Something to Believe In requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can help you fix the stubs articles for his albums. I have his entire discography and liner notes in front of me --Don't Wrestle Doves (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Americanising (-izing!) the article - it's only when a native speaker looks at it that those little details jump out. Your edit summary re program/me made me laugh! Best wishes from across the pond, Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- Hope no offense (offence?) was taken. KConWiki (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Battlestar Wiki aritlce has been nominated for deletion for the third time. Feel free to add your comments to the corresponding discussion.--DrWho42 (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Trigger Man (video game), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Trigger Man. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:BusterFinger.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your question about why Palin mention was deleted from the Wasilla article. She is mentioned under the notable residents section, and under the church section where she is listed as a former congregant. I think I understand the answer to your question re Palin on Wasilla. It is because she is not proved tied to any of the controversial church things, but I don't understand why the Wasilla Bible Church article was shut down, and the Wasilla Assembly of God was not, or why the difference between Palin's churches and Obama's that merits articles on the latter, but ot on the former. The thing making Wasilla Bible Church notble, and a permanent burn into the memories of everyone in SF and LA is- Per the Associated Press, et al, in 2008, the rural church announced that it would hold a convention to pray for God to convert gays into straights. Ref - http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jNQg39rgjbGe3663rXSnmIi4czCAD931F9180 /ref

• I will put this section on the talk page -

Wasilla Bible Church Praying for God to convert Gays into Heteros

Others have told on other talk pages that this is not uncommon for many churches. But I could find no info on any who do so in Wiki articles. I am from San Francisco, and I worked the soup kitchen at Glide Memorial Church every Sunday, but if such a prayer conference existed in the SF area, it would be the most heavily attended conference at any church, but not to do the prayers. I also worked for years consulting folks in Statistics at Stanford’s Hoover Institute, which is as conservative as it gets, but anyone there would think I was joking if I said this.

• 1. To make the assertion that this convention is not notable more objective. Can anyone direct me to a Wiki article where such a practice is described as existing in America?
• 2. Would the info go under the “Community Services” in the Wasilla Assembly of God church, not Wasilla Bible Church under Wasilla?

• Also, I will put this -

'Was your info on Wasilla Bible Church deleted? If anyone is getting their edits deleted since the Wasilla article is not the place for Wasilla Bible Church details, like are growing on the Wasilla Bible ChurchPlease don’t get into a war deleting and undeleting things. Remember, everyone is assumed to be editing in good faith.

Please put your info and references in this talk page section.

I am completely new to Wikipedia, so if you can help me understand how things work, please do. EricDiesel (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Jessica "Sugar" Kiper requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, 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 indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

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 article (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. Schuym1 (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KConWiki. Based on the templates on your talk page, I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. Note:Keep in mind that Squadron members officially state they are not inclusionists. ~~~~

Please have another look at Chrystabel Leighton-Porter wyham I think it is sorted now. Thanks Thruxton (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Rule 34 (Internet meme), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rule 34 (Internet meme). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Tracey Lynn Livermore, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the 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. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion on possibly moving Nazi plunder. As you are currently a reasonably active editor, as well as a past contributor to the article, I hope you can find some time to make comments at renaming Nazi plunder. Unschool 17:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was quite something for you to know Wikipedia has a stub for Privilege Ibiza! Moonraker2 (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This edit caught my attention, and you may have made similar mistakes when you were linking to Jack Shea (director). This is a character who happens to be named Jack Shea, it is not the director. I'm sure it was just a simple mistake, since you probably saw that it is a TV-related article. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are very correct - This was an error I made in hastiness. Thanks for the catch. KConWiki (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is 2010 East Texas Church Burnings. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 East Texas Church Burnings. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Categories priorities still confuse me. Trilobitealive (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to state what the problem was in the article. You did not clarify what your dispute was. I can not change it if I do not know why you dispute and what part is a problem with you. Whenever someone adds a tag like that on a article, I believe that it is required to put in the talk page why the article has that pacific tag. If you let me know, I would try my best to change it to fit the standards more apropriately.

--L. E. Evans 06:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondthadimepiece (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to [[1]]. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Loquitor (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Spurious awareness has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; probable neologism lacking reliable sources to show notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Chzz  ►  02:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fat&Happy (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already did a couple of fixes before I realized the extent of the issue. At least the Woodrow Wilson and William Howard Taft articles, maybe one other I don't recall. Generally, the "piped link" method I used would be preferable to creating redirect pages for all conceivable variations of the name (just a helpful hint). Of course, if the article should be renamed John Milton Cooper, Jr., or even just John M. Cooper, Jr., that's a separate issue, but the preference on how to link to the eventual article name holds. My understanding of WP naming policy is to use the shortest commonly recognized name that won't be considered ambiguous (e.g. if Cooper, Sr. was not notable enough for an article, the Jr. wouldn't be required), but I'm not exactly an expert on Wiki rules and policies so that may be wrong. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leo 04:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		Thanks for the cleanup you did on Oliver Lee (footballer) :) UnknownThing (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to The Art of the Steal (film). Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 05:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey KConWiki, I'm wondering if you know how to get the Alexa numbers for CoalSwarm? I went to the Alexa site but I wasn't sure how to do it. I was wondering if you knew, based on your handle-name?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Yemen–Zimbabwe relations has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence that there are in fact any such bilateral relations - I can't find any evidence of a diplomatic presence of either country on the other's soil. Fails WP:RS

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. andy (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

need your opinion (Idot (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Hi. I notice that you have been creating articles on relations between pairs of countries. I don't know if you are aware of it, but a year or two ago there was a considerable row about these articles: some people set out, in effect, to create them for all possible combinations, others felt that stubs saying no more than "X-Y relations are relations between X and Y" were pointless, especially in the more extreme cases, and would be better merged to "Diplomatic relations of X" articles. There were many hotly-disputed AfDs where the same arguments were endlessly rehashed. In the end, a task force, Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force was set up, to try to thrash out agreed standards. I wasn't much involved, and I don't know what the eventual conclusion was, but the row died down, so I presume some compromise was agreed. Before creating many of these articles, you might like to check out that task force, read its talk page and maybe talk to some of its members. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article NiGHTS 15th Anniversary is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NiGHTS 15th Anniversary until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. –MuZemike 01:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Nibmeister , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Tfwall (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A page you created, Mike Glicksohn, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content, but does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Becky Sayles (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a bad idea to create incomplete articles. There are three times as many references at User talk:RHaworth#Please undelete Mike Glicksohn than you managed to provide. I have restored the text to User:KConWiki/sandbox. Do not think about moving it to the (article) namespace until you have turned it into a Wikipedia article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! -129.49.72.78 (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello KConWiki, pleased to finally make your acquaintance—I've been aware of your work on the Booknotes lists for some time. Great work, and congratulations for completing (I think) such a big project. You might recognize my handle, too. Since about this time last year I've researched and rewritten most of the other C-SPAN articles, including the main Booknotes article (and I'm grateful you've adapted some of it for the list pages).

I actually come to you today with an idea for a collaboration, if you are willing and have the time. As you are likely aware, the C-SPAN Video Library has a vast archive of historically significant videos related to U.S. politics, available free on the web. Because C-SPAN is actually a client of mine (although I was a fan long before they ever were) I'm reluctant to just start posting them to External links sections of relevant articles; the last thing I want, or C-SPAN wants, is to engage in link-spamming. And yet, I do think a great many of these videos would be useful resources for a great many topics.

For that reason, I wonder if you would be interested in helping me; either reviewing links I suggest and posting them if appropriate, or giving me your independent opinion about their suitability for inclusion. If so, I could create a project page and begin making recommendations. If you're too busy or not interested, that's fine, too. But I thought this might be something you'd be interested in. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Thanks for the kind words. I think that a C-Span project page of the sort you describe (with the cautions that you mention) sounds great. I'm not sure how much I can commit to of the top of my head, but I'd be happy to see what you have in mind. I'm sure other people would be interested as well.

As for the Booknotes lists, I still have to go through and fix the links for 1992 and forward (catching up from when they changed the Booknotes website). Then, I want to visit each of the pages for the books with articles, the authors with articles, and maybe a few of the topics, and either add a transcript/video link, or else correct them if they have one of the old links.

KConWiki (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's a plan. I certainly understand your time is limited, and there is no urgency on my end. I will also bring it to the attention of editors involved with relevant WikiProjects. Before I do, sometime over the next few days I'll set up a project page in my user space, add a list of the first few video links I have in mind, and on which articles I think they'd be most helpful. Once I've done that, I'll let you know.

And I may be telling you something you already know, but all past Booknotes episodes are archived at the Video Library site. Look to the console below the featured video and there's a drop-down menu to the right called "All Categories". Booknotes is one of the options. (And of course you can find episodes via the search bar as well). Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the link fixing should be all done now. KConWiki (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

considering you created thus article 9 months ago, have you considered working on it? LibStar (talk) 11:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in your responsea. Otherwise I am considering nominating for deletion. LibStar (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead if you like, it was part of an experiment that didn't go far. (Although, I don't think it's hurting anything just sitting there...) KConWiki (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although, I am going to add a few links in there just for the heck of it, I would think that it merits a stub, at least. KConWiki (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks If that's the biggest mistake I made that day, I would be happy, but it probably wasn't. Thanks! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, KConWiki. Some progress to report on the C-SPAN Video Library project. I've obtained from C-SPAN a list of the 500 individuals who, as of last week, have appeared on C-SPAN the most over time. (#1 Bill Clinton ... #500 Jim Talent) and I've been comparing this list against Wikipedia articles to see whether the notable names among them (a significant majority) have C-SPAN links included in their ELs (still a majority, but some surprising gaps).

I've also found that a few Wikipedia templates already include C-SPAN as a parameter, significantly Template:CongLinks and Template:C-SPAN. In order to make it as easy as possible for others to help out, I've prepared the specific markup for each, and started a table, which will grow as I work through the list. You can find it here: User:WWB_Too/C-SPAN_ELs

If you're interested in adding some, please feel free, and I'll keep adding to the list. Meanwhile, I'll notify relevant WikiProjects. And if you have any other suggestions, I'd be very appreciative. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've obtained from C-SPAN a list of the 500 individuals who, as of last week, have appeared on C-SPAN the most over time. (#1 Bill Clinton ... #500 Jim Talent) - This sounds great, sign me up for 100 or so and I will review them.

In other news, I am pretty sure I have fixed all the Booknotes links from when they changed Booknotes.org around. I am currently adding in subjects on the Booknotes-by-year pages (working on 1992 now). KConWiki (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool. I have posted just the first 10 so far, but I'm working on posting the rest to the project page over the next few weeks. And just a few minutes ago now I've posted an invitation to editors on various WikiProjects: Media, Politics, Journalism and Television to see if anyone there is interested. Should be interesting. Meanwhile, if you'd like any help with the Booknotes pages, let me know if there's anything specific you could use help with. I'd be happy to return the favor. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Albert Einstein do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. I have also removed 30 of your recently added external links to www.booksore.org on a number of other articles per wp:ELNO items 1, 11, 13. Please have a look at that list. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 07:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. See also User talk:DVdm#Booknotes. - DVdm (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Spam#Not sure about Booknotes in external links - DVdm (talk) 12:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to second this note, although I wouldn't have issued you a templated message. Even if it is not your intention, your recent edits sure give off the appearance of spamming. Please try not to add links en masse like this in the future. Not every booknotes link needs to be on Wikipedia. ThemFromSpace 21:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TFS, and happy holidays. Thanks for your comment, and I want to be sensitive to this question. I don't want to give the appearance of spamming, but almost by definition, "spam" implies something junky or unwarranted or that makes use of the least common denominator. I think that this is not the case for the vast majority of the links I am adding. I would like to complete this project, and then the community can trim as needed. If I thought that even only 50% of the links would be ultimately appropriate for the articles about these authors and/or books and/or specialized topics, then I would not be trying to be as thorough as I am. I genuinely believe, however, that after it all works itself out, that maybe only 5-10% of the links I have added will be found to be questionable. (And when I say "questionable", I mean just that - that some people will feel strongly that they should be zapped, and some will feel strongly that they be kept.) But as noted before, I invite discussion on this matter, and I invite interested parties to watch one or two of the interviews for further context. THanks. KConWiki (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with KConWiki that this is not unwanted, useless generic spam -- it is NOT a link to a generic website but to specific sites exactly matched to the needs of Wikipedia articles. These sources are unique, and valuable to readers. It is not a promotion of the "Booknotes" program--it has been off the air for many years and now comprises a historical resource. Rjensen (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, let me mention something else, just to put it out there: I am not now, nor have I ever been, nor do I expect to be in the future, a recipient of any $$$ from C-SPAN or any related party. (WWB Too has indicated on numerous occasions in this discussion that he was, which is fine.) The reason I love Booknotes (and C-SPAN in general) is the same reason that I love Wikipedia - That they are both unique and fantastic ways to freely communicate vast amounts of ideas and information to a wide audience of specialists and interested amateurs, and everyone in bewteen. While I will concede that the Wiki article for Einstein (or Churchill, or Jefferson, or Hitler, or FDR, or Stalin, or certain others) might be of such breadth that an argument could be made (though it would not be a one-sided argument) that individual Booknotes links are not appropriate for those pages, that same argument would weaken significantly if made about the use of Booknotes links on the pages for T.R. Reid, Michael Korda, Stuart Rochester, or Norman Podhoretz, all of which I intend to add appropriate links to in the relatively near future. KConWiki (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the heads-up on that. I find DVdm's perspective to be rather strange and, frankly, disconcerting. As you'll see, I've addressed what seem to me like rather significant misinterpretations of specific parts of WP:ELNO, and I'll keep an eye on it. By the way, funny coincidence: just today I've got 'round to posting the "complete" list of missing C-SPAN ELs from biographical articles. I'd love to get your assistance with those as well, but maybe you should hold off for the moment: I've got a mind to see if I can offer up some C-SPAN swag in return for assistance, perhaps using WP:REWARD as a launch point. Any ideas you might have in that regard would be most welcome. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on Booknotes! Rjensen (talk) 07:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And commented! I may not be around a great deal today and tomorrow, but I'll try to keep an eye on the discussion. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 17:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an collection of external links. I do not see how these are appropriate on all the pages they are being added on. Has consensus been obtained for this? Seems a little spammy in my opinion to add this to a few hundred pages.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thanks for chiming in. I noticed that you reverted the add for the Penicillin article, which is fine (I was halfway considering not adding it to that page, but I ended up doing it anyhow). As for the question of spamminess / appropriatemess, perhaps you could take a look at the discussion here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Not_sure_about_Booknotes_in_external_links (there is a whole discussion that has unfolded about this over there.) In short, I am of the belief that 90+% of these adds will stand the test of time and scrutiny. KConWiki (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spam is not at issue here--the links are unique & useful to users. Rjensen (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)

KConWiki, I'd like to comment on that 90+% thing. You seem to put the burden of checking 100% and removal of 10-% of your external links avalanche upon other editors. For instance, take the Penicillin article. Don't you think it would have been fair to the community if you had gone all the way, by being more careful and not adding it to that page? A similar thing happened with the Einstein article, where we had to remove the link twice. Please consider reviewing your additions and remove, say, at least half of the 10-% you suspect are inappropriate, and that Rjensen and WWB Too take care of the other halve, per comments here above and below. Thanks - DVdm (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - Let me expand on that 90+% comment - It is my genuine belief that all of these links have value. I would not have put them there in the first place if I did not think they were valuable, pertinent, and appropriate. As mentioned elsewhere, I did not add them to subject pages that in my opinion were too general. That being said, I realize that there is room for disagreement. If the consensus on the Einstein or Penicillin articles is that the links do not belong, then OK, no big deal. But there are now hundreds of links to hundreds of hours of serious discussion on article topics (often with authors who are themselves the subjects of wiki articles) that are linked to from pertinent articles. I don't see this as having created a burden for anyone. KConWiki (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, KConWiki. I've been pretty busy over the past week, but I'd like to be helpful regarding the inclusion of relevant Booknotes links in WP:ELs where they belong, so if you could share an update and let me know where I can offer meaningful input, please let me know. One thought on the controversy: I suppose I could see where not every link works, so perhaps a useful heuristic could be proposed to find compromise and ensure that the best, most relevant Booknotes ELs are accepted. What that might look like, I am not sure, but if there is a way to show the additions are not merely "systematic"—let alone "robotic"—please let me know if I can help. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WWB2 - I am pretty much done with adding the Booknotes links. There are some links to BOoknotes.org in existing citations that I have come across that I identified as being dead links (they changed their web addresses a while ago) so I was going to go back and try to clean up some of those so that the citation links are valid. There are some other C-SPAN related items I would like to work on too, but I am going to take a break for a little bit. As for the question of a heuristic of some sort, I would love to be able to demonstrate the value of the links / interviews with some sort of data, but I am also not sure how that could be done. KConWiki (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for your blitz on Category:Stubs! I've finished the job, so the category is empty for the first time since the December stub-creation-fest. I've found it pretty dispiriting looking at the category recently as there were so many dreadfully poor stubs and I find I can't just stub-sort and move on but feel the need to improve them too. But I kept picking out interesting-looking ones (eg ones which clearly needed a DEFAULTSORT, or with a disambiguation to check whether they were accessible from the base name), and started cleaning them up from Z backwards recently. PamD 10:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saying so - I had noticed the backlog getting bigger and bigger too and I had been meaning to do something about it. This is the type of thing that I can do while I watch a movie at my desk, so I figured I would just dig in and see how far I got. Some of them seem destined for merging or deleting, but I'll let someone else worry about that. KConWiki (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've had another blitz: I'd become dispirited by that mass of boring little stubs, which I think are actually positively unhelpful because they provide less information than the county listings of NRHP sites! But don't forget that we ought to add as specific a stub or stubs as we can: the few that I did of that batch (working up from the end of the alphabet), I added {{Idaho-NRHP-stub}} as well as {{Idaho-struct-stub}}.

I also tend to add other things I notice while I'm on the page - in these cases {{unref}} at the top, and {{coord missing|Idaho}}, and ", United States," to give geographical context in the lead sentence.

There were such a batch of these that I was wondering if I could do something with AWB to work through them all. Meanwhile I just picked out the other stubs to stub-sort etc today. So thanks for disposing of all those Idaho NRHP stubs, but do remember to look out for specific relevant stub tags, especially if there's a batch of stubs with a lot in common like that lot. Best wishes, PamD 18:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't even realize that there were state-specific NRHP stubs. I will keep that in mind for the future. KConWiki (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem at Template:Did you know nominations/America in the King Years. SL93 (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of America in the King Years at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your comment on my Talk page about the new C-SPAN articles. Very cool. I'll share with the C-SPAN folks tomorrow, and I'm sure they'll be excited to see them. Perhaps we can even offer some feedback; let me know if you have any questions. Also FYI, I've been working on expanded + improved drafts to improve both Brian Lamb and Robert X. Browning. Perhaps you'd be interested in reviewing them? WWB Too (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 February 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article America in the King Years, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that each of the three volumes of Taylor Branch's biography of Martin Luther King, Jr. were named based on aspects of the Book of Exodus? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/America in the King Years.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JUst a note-- the book is not a biography (faulty hook) and plagiarism was found. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to get someone to tell me the specifics of this plagiarism allegation - If I wrote something that is similar to something that someone else wrote, it was purely unintentional. I would like to get this question resolved. As for the biography question, I will go along with the idea that it might be better to call it a history that has King as its central figure - But, I do not think it is outlandish to refer to the biographical aspects of it - Here is a Google search for "King Biographer Branch" that demonstrates that Branch is commonly referred to as King's biographer. KConWiki (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 February 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article American Writers: A Journey Through History, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the C-SPAN series American Writers visited a meat processing plant to discuss Upton Sinclair's The Jungle? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/American Writers: A Journey Through History.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KConWiki. First thing, on behalf of C-SPAN, please accept this barnstar-inspired award I've created as of today. Thanks for your contributions related to C-SPAN, and I look forward to seeing your work in the future.

Second, you might be interested in a project I've just posted on the Reward Board: the C-SPAN linking project I first mentioned to you last fall. Since then I've reconceived it sightly. In its current design, I'm looking for editor assistance adding External links already suggested by the {{C-SPAN}} and {{CongLinks}} templates. Rewards include the attached award—of which you're the first recipient—and C-SPAN hats, available to participants with a U.S. address.

Let me know if you have any thoughts on it, and I should have some feedback on your recent C-SPAN articles soon. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will display this proudly! I am going to wrap up some details about Amer. Presidents, Amer. Writers, and Lincoln-Douglas, and then I am going to try to work through a few more of the projects I have in mind about past programs before taking a chunk out of your list. However, I will pick a couple off your list to do just to make sure I have the hang of it. KConWiki (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I nominated this article for deletion per WP:CSD#A7. Regards Hekerui (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	You and WBB did a great job on the ‎"List of C-SPAN Q&A interviews first aired in 20XX" articles! Great work. Math321 (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! They're not even all the way done yet - there is some disambiguating to do and I have some of the dates not in the right order, and there are some things I want to do comments or other links on. Hope to get to all that in the next week or so. BTW, how did you happen to come across these? KConWiki (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, KConWiki. I mentioned to you a few weeks back that I was working on some additional C-SPAN articles, including a proposed expansion of the Brian Lamb article. I recently posted a request at the Paid Editor Help page of WikiProject Cooperation (and on Lamb's article) and was starting to get somewhere before two participating editors disagreed on the merits of my draft, and now it's ground to a halt. If you have the time or inclination to look in and offer your opinion, it would be very welcome. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I wanted to share back that I shared your new articles with C-SPAN as promised. Overall, a very positive response. Great work. There is one thing they did point out to me, about The Lincoln-Douglas Debates (1994 reenactments): in the first sentence, your version says they were "sponsored" by C-SPAN, but they've advised me this is not so. C-SPAN encouraged the cities involved to hold the debates, promising to air them, but did not produce the debates. I do have a source to verify this, but it's not available (for free) online. Via Lexis-Nexis, I found a February 28, 1994 St. Louis Post-Dispatch article, by Doug Pokorski, titled Debates 'Lincoln, Douglas' Set for Cable TV:

"The local communities are in charge of producing the debates," [C-SPAN spokeswoman Rayne] Pollack said. "We're not setting up our own event and then covering it. All we have asked for is that they use the most complete transcript and perform it in its entirety. Our goal is for it to appear as if C-SPAN was actually there in 1858."

If you're OK following a (sort of) offline source, I'd suggest "encouraged" would be a more accurate phrasing. What do you think?

Also, one more thought, entirely my own: should the article title include the definite article? I realize the book inspiring the series uses it, though based on my own perusal of C-SPAN's Video Library here, for instance it seems they do not. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I got rid of the word "sponsored' from the opening sentence. I suppose I used that word in an inexact sense; "encouraged" or maybe "facilitated" might have been better words. But I am just omitting it without replacement, at least for the time being. I have an article from the Baltimore Sun that says something similar: "Spurred on by its own 15th anniversary, C-Span officials approached the mayors of all seven cities last year. Re-create your debates, they said, using local talent and local money, and we'll come in and broadcast them, as though we'd been there in 1858... ...All seven mayors agreed, the state of Illinois chipped in $20,000 for each site and C-Span spent $300,000 to $500,000 promoting the debates, providing staff people to coordinate the coverage and putting together educational materials. The Lincoln-Douglas debates were on their way back to center stage." KConWiki (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for the "The", I don't know if there is a right answer or not, and if we have just established that C-SPAN did not sponsor the event, then the exact usage in the Video Archive site's segment titles would not be authoritative. Not only that, but check out this poster for a leading article. I think I am going to wait for someone with a stronger opinion on the matter than I have to come along and address this. KConWiki (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the slow reply here: looks fine now with "sponsored" removed; one of your replacement words I think would be a lot better. Regarding "The" you raise a fair point; this may be one of those situations where a definitive title was never properly settled, in which case what you have is fine. By the way, have you had a chance to look at my new Brian Lamb draft, mentioned above? I'm looking for a clearer expression of consensus to move it; I thought we were getting close, and then conversation just slowed. Hope you can find a moment to weigh in. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, never mind! The Brian Lamb article was in fact moved overnight, and I'd just failed to notice. I've actually got a draft for one more C-SPAN person in the wings, Robert X Browning, but I'll only check back if I get stuck there, too. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't comment on your Lamb article sooner, I think it looks real good. Let me know if you need anything about the Browning one too, but I have kind of come to the realization that I would rather (and this is just me, you know) work first on building pages for their shows and specials (and I am trying to think how best to do one for the School Bus(es)) and also on adding SPAN links to the pages for the authors/books/sites/topics seen in their programming before turning to the pages for the individuals associated with C-SPAN. This is despite the fact that Lamb is one of my all-time heroes. Like, I am sure that Susan Swain deserves a page (or to put it better, Wikipedia deserves to have a page about her) but I am not putting that at the top of my to-do list; Partly because the Spanners like to keep (as you know) a low-profile in terms of not promoting their own selves on air. That being said, I am sure that Susan Swain, Rob Kennedy, and others ought to one day have their own pages. KConWiki (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KConWiki -- I've seen you've piped numerous categories. For the life of me, I can't figure out what the piped names do. They show up on the page under the original name and link to the original categories. (E.g., I don't see any differences at all.) Can you enlighten me please? Thanks.--S. Rich (talk) 03:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - They make them alpha-sort to the piped phrase in the given category. This is handy if you have one article with several categories, and you don't want it to alpha-sort the same way for each of them. For instance, I just got done adding some categories to articles about the histories of different universities. In the example (below) of History of Texas Tech University, I added the category History of Texas and piped it to alpha sort under "T". This is appropriate in that category because otherwise you could conceivably have a dozen Texas-related articles that start with the word "History" that would clog up the "H" section of that category listing. Same goes for the category Category:History of United States colleges and universities, because practically every article in the category would sort under "H". However, in the category Category:Texas Tech University, it is appropriate to allow it to sort to the "H" section, because "History of" is the aspect of Texas Tech that the article is about.

[[Category:Texas Tech University]]
[[Category:History of United States colleges and universities|Texas Tech University]]
[[Category:History of Texas|Texas Tech University]]

Let me know if I can comment further.

KConWiki (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --S. Rich (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)[reply]

Thanks for helping me in my article A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes.  Tariq.Imran  Talk 15:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite welcome! KConWiki (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		Thanks for your frequent help for new users.  Tariq.Imran  Talk 15:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...For this. I think i copied and pasted the section as a quote and so didn't notice. Either way - Thanks! ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I've been trying to clean up spelling errors for various cities, states, and countries. There were about 100 "Fransisco"s scattered around through WP. KConWiki (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Might be easier to request a rename of the famous city in that case then. It would make your job easier =P

Thanks again ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating United Kingdom U.S. relations, KConWiki!

Wikipedia editor Ryan Vesey just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I've noticed a ton of similar useful redirects you've been creating. Keep up the good work!

To reply, leave a comment on Ryan Vesey's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Nice of you to say so - here is the page where I coordinate those efforts: User:KConWiki/Bilateral relations redirects. I've only really done the U.S. and the U.K. thus far. KConWiki (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for posting that link to the story on the Wikipedia articles on the Torah portions. I had not yet seen it. I appreciate your thoughtfulness. Be well. -- Dauster (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all... Keep up the good work! KConWiki (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a heads up, you might want to take a little more when care removing links, such as you did here. It would have been better to correct it to George P. Mitchell, one of the pages disambiguated at George Mitchell. Cheers, Heiro 05:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Listening to Louis Armstrong now as we speak too! I was reluctant to create a template for a while given some of his albums are still missing, but on a whim last night I figured an incomplete one was better than none at all. Appreciate the kind feedback, thank you :) --RubenSchade (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You bet - Let me recommend The Real Ambassadors, which is not as well-known as it ought to be. KConWiki (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikifier Your Wikification Newsletter – Volume II, Issue I, November 2012 Front Cover • From the editor • General news Membership • Drive results Hello, wikifiers! The November 2012 issue of the project newsletter is out, and the December Wikification Drive starts in a couple of days. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks! Note: The drive starts 00:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC), and you can sign up anytime!

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Wikify, 22:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a section on the talk page for the article Richard Nixon titled "Section deleted on 13 December 2012." Please share your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, this is very kind of you and I appreciate your saying so! I also appreciate that you take the effort to commend and encourage other editors.

Fröhliche Weihnachten! KConWiki (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply