Gracefool

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renato M. E. Sabbatini (2nd nomination). You participated in the first AfD. - Eastmain (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

As far as I can tell from the history, you seem to be the original contributor of {{Cite book}}. I have heard that originally all the cite xxx family of templates were modeled on APA style. Can you tell me if this is true? Jc3s5h (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's correct - but we weren't strict about it. Why? ··gracefool☺ 18:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sometimes there are new fields added, and there are disagreements about how to format them. If the goal is to follow APA, then the APA manual should influence the decision. Of course, if the APA manual was only loosely followed, then I guess it is decided by whoever is the most persistent. Thanks for your reply.

More specifically, there is a fairly new template, {{Cite thesis}}. There is disagreement about whether to merge it into either {{Cite journal}} or {{Cite book}}, and whether the title of a PhD thesis should be in italics. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah it's not necessarily to follow the APA, so decisions should be judged on their own merits, and decided by discussion as per usual. As for {{cite thesis}}, I've posted its talk page. ··gracefool☺ 23:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am not understanding something and I hope you can help me. Back in 2006, you marked {{fn}} and {{fnb}} as deprecated ([1], [2]). Your edit comment at that time was "deprecated (use note with labels instead so new footnotes don't break old ones)". It's not clear to me how adding new footnotes with fn/fnb would break old ones; presumably, editors have to use care to avoid duplicate refs using either set of templates. Can you enlighten me?

Some background: I noticed that a Featured Article Candidate (Elvis Presley) used fn/fnb and I hadn't seen those templates before. I looked at the docs, found they were deprecated and there wasn't any information on how to use them. I thought it was a bad idea for an FAC to use deprecated templates, but when I started the process of converting them, the combination of {{Ref}} and {{Note}} seemed slightly more difficult than fn/fnb and I am not sure what was gained, at least in the simple cases used in Elvis Presley. I can certainly see cases where a note should be referenced multiple times and fn/fnb is not up to that task.

For example, to remove fn/fnb from Elvis Presley, I'd probably replace fn/fnb along these lines:

There are a couple minor appearance details (caret, bold text) that could be changed by editing fnb; they might be important in terms of usability ot MOS, but I don't think that's the issue. Other than that, what's the advantage of using ref/note versus fn/fnb? — John Cardinal (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

{{ref}} should be used for references, {{fn}} should be used for footnotes (see #Footnote above) ··gracefool☺ 19:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

From {{fn}}: "The template {{Fn}} is deprecated. Please use {{Ref label}} instead." The page was last edited by Debresser (he updated the template message to point to Ref label), so I don't understand his comment above saying he didn't think it should be deprecated. Evidently, he changed his mind. That seems wise. I have converted a few pages and found a few solutions for the various use cases. None of the solutions are as simple as {{fn}}/{{fnb}}, but that simplicity comes at a price: many of the articles using {{fn}} are broken in one way or another. — John Cardinal (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Fluid shares. 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/Fluid shares. 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) 01:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I have nominated Template:Popcatwithusers for deletion and, since you created the template, wanted to invite you to share your comments (if any) at the discussion.

Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Metal Storm, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. (Hohum ^@) 00:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do you have to use a template, I've been here longer than you. But yeah I should have included the {{fact}} myself. I copied it from Future Force Warrior. ··gracefool☺ 03:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure, but I think they've changed the template to add the "welcome" boilerplate - either way, I use the templates to save time - no comment on your time served as an editor was intended. (Hohum ^@) 17:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Herzog Zwei 2player.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there,

I was looking at the cover images uploaded by people and making a tally to see who I could contact for help, and I noticed that you have uploaded a few such images. Obviously I'm not asking you to take this whole thing on by yourself, but any help you can give is appreciated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons#Need book cover images. Thanks!  :) BOZ (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Batman box.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 13:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's not orphaned anymore, someone changed the article but it was reverted in hours. This shows a flaw in your system of checking - the image had been orphaned for less than an hour when you posted this warning. You need to check that it's been orphaned for a decent length of time first. ··gracefool☺ 00:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

It really doesn't, because the F5 tag has a seven day hold time, (So even an instant tagging wouldn't matter) and we work off a database report that is published every night at 0300, so the image was actually orphaned for at least 10 hours. Courcelles 02:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ah right thanks. ··gracefool☺ 04:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Floating wind turbine, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Please ensure material you add to Wikipedia is properly cited, and more specifically, is cited with reliable secondary sources. Your recent additions to the Floating wind turbine article were just bare URLs, and the bare URLs were to a company website. N2e (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Umm that was the edit before mine. ··gracefool☺ 00:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Quite right. Very sorry about that! My edit to the article was okay, but I incorrectly clicked on your Talk page rather than the one I should have to leave the message. Recommend deletion of the whole Talk page section. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

  This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Aquatic Locomotion, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. If you vandalize any further biological articles by inserting POV tags on evolutionary facts, I will report you to the admins. Here's a nickel, go buy a better belief system. Mokele (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I understand that as a committed editor of evolutionary articles you probably do see a lot of legitimate vandalism from creationist types, but my edit was not among them. You clearly need to re-read the definition of vandalism. My edit was in good faith. All I did was add some {{citation needed}} templates in places that were legitimately unverified, and added some phrases like "believed to be" in front of assertions of specific unproven theories. I don't know what you mean by "POV tags", the only place I put that was in my edit summary. I'm not a rabid creationist, I believe evolution happens, but I believe statements on Wikipedia should be backed up with sources.
• I agree to back off with the NPOV attempt, and I'll be more careful with my edit summaries in future. I'm a very reasonable guy, but others are less reasonable and you're much more likely to get your way by being nice!
• I'm very concerned at your aggressive, threatening approach. Your criticism is misplaced and is in blatant disregard of Wikipedia policies like Unacceptable behaviour on talk pages, User space harassment, No personal attacks and the very Blocking policy that you cite. According to policy at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (which I would expect you to know very well by now, having reported many users there), even if I were a vandal, I should have multiple recent warnings for obvious and persistent vandalism. Threats like this are likely to scare-off newbies from contributing to Wikipedia altogether.
• To top it all off you insult my (assumed) belief system. Statements like that really have no positive impact at all and will just make people angry.
• I'd be well within my rights to report you for bad etiquette; I believe I've shown above that you reporting me wouldn't get very far.

··gracefool☺ 01:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

On the actual topic of substance, the "unproven theories" have copious fossil evidence to back them up. Evolution is not a POV, it's undisputable fact - we literally have more proof of it than of gravity. Adding "weasel words" to statements detailing well-documented evolutionary events is at best evidence of badly insufficient understanding of the topic and at worst is a technique I have seen used before by creationist trolls. While it seems you were attempting to help, and I may have been rather harsh, I would ask that you do not make any such further edits regarding evolutionary topics. Mokele (talk) 02:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia does not deal in "fact"—it deals in verifiability. It would appear that requesting a few citations for unsourced statements is perfectly appropriate, and fully comports with WP:NPOV. I find no vandalism at all in the edits of Gracefool in the subject article. Mokele should, indeed, assume good faith in initial interactions with other editors; which I have politely requested on her/his Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

You may want to see WP:WQA#Not assuming good faith and incivility by User:Mokele. Swarm ^X 18:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello Gracefool, I am in receipt of the message to site a resoure regarding Transformer Dyring techniquest that I updated over the weekend. This was my first time so tried to follow instructions. My question is, when citing a resource, I don't think I'm allowed to refer a vendor website that has instructions for different types of resins, drying time and applications, correct? If not, I'll cite another reference. The vendor's website is rather thorought but I don't think I'm allowed to make that reference. Please help me clarify and I'll move forward.

Ajay S. Ajsharma01 (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC) ajsharm01, Ajay SharmaReply

I'm not sure what specifically you're talking about but the policy on choosing sources to cite is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. ··gracefool☺ 08:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply