User talk:Plastikspork: Difference between revisions

Plastikspork is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

Barnstar, Archive 1

26 September 2024
In the media: Courts order Wikipedia to give up names of editors, legal strain anticipated from "online safety laws" Community view: Indian courts order Wikipedia to take down name of crime victim, editors strive towards consensus Serendipity: A Wikipedian at the 2024 Paralympics Opinion: asilvering's RfA debriefing News and notes: Are you ready for admin elections? Gallery: Are Luddaites defending the English Wikipedia? Recent research: Article-writing AI is less "prone to reasoning errors (or hallucinations)" than human Wikipedia editors Traffic report: Jump in the line, rock your body in time
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Posted copyright warning for Nielsen Media. Plastikspork (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 17#Is IMDb a reliable_source? Plastikspork (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The form since 1996 should be used in favor of 1996–present in article text and infoboxes.

— Wikipedia:MOSDATE#Other date ranges

This seems clear to me. Plastikspork (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I wasn't aware that TV.com was a wiki, I'll file that away for future reference and not use it to cite anything. I've found a couple of other citations for Eva's AKA and engagement and added them to the article, but please take them out if they aren't "up to snuff", so to speak. Couldn't find anything else for now, but I mostly was just trying to improve the article. Speaking of which, the references look all out of whack, and other than changing "references" with <> to "reflist" with {} (because I think it looks better) I didn't really know how to fix them. Any ideas? Thanks. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 02:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, much better. I am developing a script to help with this process of cleaning up references. Unfortunately, it still requires quite a bit of work by hand after it runs. I got most all but the bare urls, which will require clicking through to get the titles. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as well. Now I know what kind of "script" you're working on, I thought maybe you were making a movie. Cheers. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 02:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Plastikspork - sorry to clutter up your talk page (feel free to delete these lines once read). I just wanted to say I did notice your comment on your most recent edit to the Sydney Selwyn article; 13:42, 25 April 2009 'Yes, that's much better. Keep up the good work' and to thank you for what once again turned out to be helpful intervention by you (I admit I was sceptical at first).... anyhow I've learned something and do agree it has improved the article. All the best Barryz1 (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the reasons that the KMT article was tagged for speedy deletion, and would like to know if another, with the same title, can be reworked, while maintaining neutrality and staying within the proper narrative boundaries. Thanks kindly; I await your reply. Respectfully; Smkovalinsky (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can sufficiently establish notability. Why not start by adding a section to Kegel exercise, perhaps something like 'male trainers' or whatever and possibly other male exercisers could be added as well? Assuming it's suitably well written, I would not object, and in fact, KMT could be redirected there. Plastikspork (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR RESPONSE. I will take your advice to heart, and speak with my client. Smkovalinsky (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, your client? You should seriously read WP:COI before writing anything. Plastikspork (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Well, I work for a multimedia firm, and many of our assignments are to write Wikipedia pages. Hmmmm. I have not had much understanding of it, and just more or less wanted to write well, and help out. Sigh. Live and learn. Smkovalinsky (talk) 02:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you can't write anything, you should just seriously read WP:COI before writing anything, and disclose any financial interests on your user page to avoid misunderstandings. Best of Luck. Plastikspork (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand, and thank you kindly. I believe one can maintain neutrality; certainly reporting demands it, which has been a lot of my prior experience. Smkovalinsky (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty spammy/vanity, and now deleted as such, thanks jimfbleak (talk) 04:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is number 66-something.

It's the first time I have learned about this method of contact.

What I did was make a necessary add to include "Adult Contemporary" under Genre. I might have re-adjusted the pop rock label to look like "pop/rock".

I was at the time browsing the page and learned that the genre states that his music was 'rock', so I searched for one of his rock songs and found one called 'Fool's Game'.

After listening to 'Fool's Game', I then agreed that "rock" belongs under Genre.

Thanks for sending me a message and letting me know that this page is like under parental supervision.

Sincerely, 66-something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.4.135 (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are so many pages on Wikipedia and a nontrivial number of edits are vandalism. So, when I see a constructive edit by a new (or anonymous) user, I try to give some positive feedback. Hopefully we can increase the number of constructive editors, and as a result, improve Wikipedia. Thanks again for your edits, and I hope you decide to stick around and help out some more. Plastikspork (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Plastikspork, My name is Malik Ali and I am the author of the Wikipedia page, Malik Ali. I reviewed your comments this morning and I wanted to make you aware of some revisions I have made and some concerns I had. First, I added a section titled Reliable Sources that reference my accomplisments as a writer to the paper that I was employed at, as well as what newspapers published articles about me as an athlete. I certainly hope you review the modifications I have made in a fair manner. Furthermore, I was greatly offended that you chose only to recognize that Panagis Dionysios Evangelatos is only noted for being arrested, but you didn't care to mention a single word about the degree in English and World literature also earned under that name. I hope you consider my message with honesty and fairness, and appreciate that my page is a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Malik Ali —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alim27 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. Be sure to voice your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malik Ali as the deletion of this article is not up to me. When editing articles, please read what you are editing. You modified the AFD tag which removed the link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malik Ali. When adding comments to talk pages, be sure to sign your comments with ~~~~, otherwise we don't know who left the message. When adding information to a Biography of a Living Person you absolutely need to include a reliable source. And, you should really try to avoid writing an article about yourself. For example, see WP:COI and WP:autobiography. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The actual birthdates of CariDee English and Jaslene Gonzalez are considered true from Fashion Model Directory profiles. Fashion Model Directory is a reliable source not as IMDB.

http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/models/Caridee_English
http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/models/Jaslene_Gonzalez

Thanks. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 01:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 05:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I remove the birthdates of these article according to reliable sources policy? BTW, If those birthdates are needing in RS, I add Year of birth missing in living people. Thank you. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 23:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this sounds reasonable. WP:BLP is relatively strict on birthdates. Plastikspork (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say that I really appreciate your looking out for so many of the reality show articles and articles related to them here at Wikipedia. If you were not around here, I can only imagine how awful some of these articles would be. The Tiffany Pollard article, for example, has been subject to much bad editing and vandalism (as I am sure you know). It is nice to see it currently stable and free of all that mess. You are mostly to thank for that, as well as keeping many more articles clean. Thank you for all your help around Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. I have about 2000 pages on my watchlist and I sometimes it becomes a bit much, but I do what I can. I keep a mental list of editors whos edits I don't need to carefully check and you are on the list. Someday I should read up on how to automate this process, but one thing at a time. Thanks again. Plastikspork (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Plastikspork, it is really nice to hear from you. We have never interacted before, but I have to tell you that I am impressed with your work and dedication here. While it is true that policy does not state that "birth dates" does "not" have to be sourced, it doesn't state that birth dates have to have a source either. I would say that it is an unwritten law in Wikipedia since birth dates of notable people which have been published in one or more reliable sources and therefore been widely published. I would say by viewing the thousands of Bios. here, that it is a widely accepted norm. Otherwise, we would have to start asking for sources every single minor detail.

Now, in regard to "La La", it seems to me that the most of the reliable websites which had her born 25 June, 1979, when the article was started are no longer in the net, yet the vast majority in google cite her as being born in 79' while about two cite her in 80'. I believe then the best approach would then be to cite her birthdate as (c. 1979). Hey, I'm sorry to take so long to answer you, but I have so many things on hand. Take care and keep up the great job. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Thanks for the feedback. Plastikspork (talk)

Nice job on improving that butt-ugly genealogical table! pablo_hablo. 09:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it's all factually correct, but at least the formatting is a bit nicer. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious why you changed the script that was run on the Lists of Common Misspellings. The one run around April 24 was fine. But the script run around May 7 did two things that were somewhat unexpected (at least to me). (1) The pages now display the quotation marks for words in which the search parameter initiates an exact search. It's a bit jarring to see, but in the final analysis may be helpful. (2) The script re-inserted at least two entries that had been commented out because they returned too many false positives (the words "u" and "planed"). Not a big deal (I can re-comment them out). Again, neither of these issues is a problem; I was just curious as I hadn't seen anything on the talk page announcing the new script. Thanks. JimVC3 (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. It appears I completely forgot to leave a notice before making the change. I am in the process of fixing the problems that you mentioned. On a related note, in the process of making the change I actually found quite a few errors. Basically, by requiring that the search term is listed twice, once for the link and once for the link target, this allows for the two strings to not match. Usually it was the link target which was wrong, since the link would then look correct when rendered on the page. I hope you find the 'search link' template helpful in that it makes it easier to add entries without having to write the search term twice. I will work on making the template remove the quotes in the rendered search link, but for now, the second unnamed parameter is the link text. As for uncommenting false positive entries. I was not aware that it was a problem if they were not actually linked? Now that I have read the instructions at the top of each page, I see that the method for commenting one out is to change the bullet '*' to an indent ':'. By the way the script that I ran did not uncomment the entries, I did that by hand since I thought it would be okay if they were not linked to let people know that these were indeed misspellings, but not ones which could be reliably identified by a simple WP search. Sorry again and I hope that things are better when I am finished fixing the problems you mentioned. Plastikspork (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. A note on the talk page would have been helpful, but not a big deal. (1) Removing the display of the quotation marks is fine from a stylistic standpoint. Oddly, in the last hour I've convinced myself they're helpful. As I noted a few weeks ago on the misspelling talk page, some words need to be exact searches, others don't. It may be helpful to see which type of search is being performed without going to the edit page. (2) I'm not at all surprised that you found errors in the search terms. Many people who add words by cut and paste neglect to make changes in both places. I did a massive clean-up of other things several months ago and didn't have the energy to look for those errors. Thanks for cleaning them up. (3) I'm not sure what to do about the entries with thousands of false positives. I began working with these pages when I was a real newbie and just followed instructions to comment things out. But one could argue that a display that is unlinked is fine as well. (4) On a related issue, I actually believe that the instructions are incorrect. Substituting a colon does not comment the line out; it just makes for an unattractive, unlinked display. Yours look better. I may suggest a re-phrasing of the instructions at some later date. (5) I found the new template that you're using and read the discussion. Yes, it is helpful. Again, thanks for your work. JimVC3 (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Let me know if you want me to do any/all of the following: (a) Restore the rendering of the exact search string; including quotes, (b) change the indentation style for 'false positive' entries back to the more visually appealing version, (c) update the instructions at the top of each page. I can do any/all of these by just adding a couple lines to a script and pressing one button on each page. It appears were are the only two who actively care about how it looks. I have been corresponding with another editor who appears to use the page as part of an automatic editing script, but he/she doesn't care as the script uses a cached version. For item c, we could try to hash out a more accurate set of instructions first. Thanks for the feedback. Plastikspork (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - there isn't a great deal of concern about how the page looks, so I don't want to unnecessarily complicate things. But for what it's worth: (a) I see you already changed the rendering to eliminate the quotation marks. My suggestion would be to keep it simple and leave it that way. (b) There were only two or three false positives that were commented out. Those could be kept as/returned to being commented out OR changed to the "*" style in non-searchable text. I don't have a strong preference. But there were dozens of "acceptable variant" words that I had already changed to the "*"/non-searchable (i.e., more visually appealing) style. The point was to allow visitors to the page to see that the word shouldn't be entered as a misspelling. It would be great if you could return those to the "*"/non-searchable style. (c) Depending on which of these options you settle on, new instructions would be great. I'd be happy to help work something out on the talk page. But I may be offline for a few days and don't want to hold you up. Your call. JimVC3 (talk) 02:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope things are looking better now. I took a first stab at writing a better set of instructions by creating an instructions "template" which is included at the top of each page. This should help maintain consistency. Let me know if there are any problems. Thanks again. Plastikspork (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, things look great. Thank you. I think your instructions are clear, but I've already had to correct one entry. Using quotation marks in the new search parameter set-up is going to throw people off. But there's nothing more that you can do about it. It will just take time. Thanks again. JimVC3 (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I recall the entry you corrected was to remove the quotes from the link text? At least this is no worse than it was before when every link had to list the search term twice. Hopefully, this will cut down on the number of falsely listed entries. I believe it's possible to make {{search link}} remove the quotes automatically, but I will have to do some research on this. Thanks again. Plastikspork (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Plastikspork:

Please help me improve the page: VS Sampath and post in google search page. Thank you. --Dr.Appalayya (talk) 04:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to help you wikify the page once you have added some more content, but I don't really have time to do research on the subject for you. Best Regards. Plastikspork (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am in the process of developing a script to automatically correct common misspellings in articles. The initial goal is for users to have a button at the top of the article which will open an edit window and do a search/replace to correct common misspellings. When the script completes, it then shows the changes and allows the editor to decide if the changes were correct. The goal is to have as few falsely corrected entries, so some of the entries on WP:LCM wouldn't be added. If you are interested in trying it out, let me know. My initial prototype only has entries from the "A" page. There are probably some minor bugs in there as well, but it won't commit any changes without approval. The script is at User:Symplectic Map/AutoSpell and you just have to include User:Symplectic Map/spell.js in your monobook.js file, e.g., User:Symplectic Map/monobook.js. If you are using something other than the standard theme, it would have to be included there instead. It should work on Firefox and Google Chrome. I haven't tested Internet Explorer. If you know of another script for doing this sort of thing, please let me know, so I don't unnecessarily waste any time. Thanks! Symplectic Map (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I will have a look when I have some time. It would be great if this could be integrated with the "machine readable" list on WP:LCM. Thanks for the note. Plastikspork (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I noticed that you are one of the developers of WP:AutoEd, which has been quite helpful in developing my script. I also see that you are having problems with IE. I will let you know if I am able to solve this issue and please keep me informed if you figure it out first. Best regards. Symplectic Map (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears I was able to solve most of my IE issues with the script. The major technical problem was that Firefox allows for addressing a string as an array, but IE didn't allow this. Instead, I had to use the slice function to address the individual characters. There may be a better way, but I don't know what it is at the moment. Let me know if you have any suggestions or feedback. Best Regards. Symplectic Map (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I will see if I can figure out what is going on with WP:AutoEd. If you have some free time (who does these days), it would be great if you could have a look to see if there is anything obvious. Plastikspork (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made some modifications to the core.js, (see User:Symplectic Map/autoedcore.js), and got something that works on IE. I also simplied the namespace logic, perhaps more/less than you what you need. The key problem with IE and Chrome is that you can't rely on a particular order of execution of statements due to optimizations. It's the whole execute on reference idea. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to force execution before a 'typeof' statement. Feel free to use what I have written and refine it for your needs. Let me know if I can help any more. Best Regards. Symplectic Map (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. It works! By the way, I tweaked it a bit here. The minor changes being the check for 'ca-edit', just in case we aren't allowed to edit that page, and the 'typeof' check on the 'document.forms', which isn't entirely necessary, but seems more syntax pleasing. Thanks again! Plastikspork (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder the article has closed as result in AFD as redirect. It should be indefinite full protection which IP/registered user edits are malicious to re-create the article. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 05:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was 4 months ago, and no longer relevent. Runner ups up ANTM are considered Noteworthy, and Alison Has more about her than just ANTM. ... MistyWillows ^talk 07:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words and your comments during the AFD. It's always good to communicate with Wikipedians whose main goal is to improve things around here, even if I don't always agree with them at all times... — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 14:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Incidentally, there's a bit of a disagreement right now in the talk page about whether a fancruft tag is appropriate for this page. Personally, to me, it seems like someone who felt it should have been deleted now trying a different approach, and I don't think it's appropriate. I was hoping you could weigh in; I don't want to just rally the AFD supporters, but I thought you could be a neutral voice since you voted for a redirect but seemed to appreciate the article as well... — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 23:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just installed Sporkscript, and I tried it out on Allison Harvard. When I used Spork: CiteTemplate, it only modified the last reference. How do I get it to work for the rest? Thanks for writing Sporkscript it seems like a wonderful tool. ... MistyWillows ^talk 16:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I just improved the matching criteria in User:Plastikspork/citetools.js, and it should work now. The problem was there was a comma after 'Retrieved', which is a strange place to put a comma. The script now ignores this comma. You will have to force a reload of the script to keep it from using the cached version. You can do this by reloading User:Plastikspork/citetools.js, or probably by reloading your monobook.js. Let me know if you find other pages where I can improve the matching criteria. Also, I am currently merging this script with WP:AutoEd, but not all the features have been merged yet, and SporkScript will probably still exists after the merge, just with fewer buttons. Thanks again! Plastikspork (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that helped alot. One other thing, it would be great if Spork: Wiki/LinkRepair checked for links to deleted/missing articles (redlinks) and unlinked them. ... MistyWillows ^talk 17:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted is probably non-controversial, but delinking all WP:REDLINKS would be. That aside, coding such a script would be a bit more involved, but possible. I will look into it if I have some spare time. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thanks for the barnstar! And I've kind of been watching the new Charm School article, I don't know why haha; I guess just 'cause the reality TV articles are more fun to edit. But I'm sick of the vandilism and having to revert it. Since you are an established member, I was wondering if you could get semi-protection on it? Thanks. Wikiguy09 (talk) 04:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you put Daisy of love on semi-protection too? thanks Wikiguy09 (talk) 22:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I just submitted a request. FYI, I'm not an admin so basically all I do is post a request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. The key is to emphasize that you want temporary semi-protection, and that it is in response to recent vandalism. They will deny the request if it's not due to recent activity, so you want to post the request right after you notice a spike in vandalism. Plastikspork (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can You edit Tool Academy (Season 2) the date was announced on vh1.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capoeira Fighter 3 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the main page was moved to season 1, which is reasonable. The next step would be to create a top-level page, and, of course, the season 2 page once there are more details. Creating a season 2 page too soon would most likely violate {{db-spam}}. Plastikspork (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still figuring this stuff out, so I apologize, but I do have a response to your comment on the Daisy of Love page.

Cage said it would be best for him to leave, so Daisy saying that she "had to let him go" is irrelevant. He was leaving anyway. Therefore, I believe that makes it a voluntary withdrawal. The VH1 blog on VH1.com also states on it's official recap that Cage withdrew on his own accord, thereby making the decision for Daisy. I don't see how this isn't a withdrawal.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bretter22 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a reasonable argument. It would probably be best to discuss this on the main talk page for Daisy of Love since there are other editors who would probably be interested in the discussion as well. Thanks for the feedback. Plastikspork (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the discussion to Talk: Daisy of Love. Plastikspork (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I've been expecting attacks since I started reverting those. In your example no reference is provided, at this point the statement is purely unsourced point of view that should be reverted. J04n(talk page) 18:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...why was that fact so important.[1] I must admit that I can't give you anything like perfect answer but I guess it's just that it was something different. Now, now, who am I kidding? 8) --62.240.86.64 (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I must admit, I really do like different, but it would be great if we could avoid WP:UNDUE/WP:TRIVIA sort of statements. From my reading of WP:BLP, we should avoid libel, and try to keep things balanced. I like 'controversy' sections, when there is something sufficiently notable. However, I would personally avoid adding tabloid statements about each time someone is found to be intoxicated. I'm so glad there isn't a WP article about me. Thank you for your contributions and helpful feedback! Plastikspork (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be true. Thanks for the fast response. Next time I'll try to be less experimental with the information added by me ;) --62.240.86.64 (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had responded to that addition on my talk page. Part of the reason I removed it is also in agreement with Plastikspork's reason regarding WP:BLP. Flyer22 (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for the feedback. I'm always very pleased to see reasoned discussion and cooperation. Plastikspork (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Plastikspork, how you doing? Maybe I should place "La La" under temporary protection with the intention of preventing further disruptions of her birth date from non-registered users. What do think? It's your call. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of attempts, that sounds like a reasonable idea. I do like to generally avoid semi-protection, especially when there are constructive edits being made by IP users, but I haven't seen much of that on La La. I was an anon IP editor for about three years before I got an account, and the reason why I got an account was primarily so I could edit semi-protected pages. After I got an account I found all kinds of helpful benefits that I hadn't thought about. I'm on semi-vacation this week, so I haven't been able to watch the page as closely as I usually do. Thanks for your help and advice. Plastikspork (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is done. Have a nice day. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to do some testing with a non-live version of AutoEd and was wondering if you'd be OK with me using your already-setup pages, rather than creating another whole new copy. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I don't know if the version I have right now is 100 percent synced, but it should be close. Plastikspork (talk) 05:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! If it doesn't work I'll revert to your last version. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 12:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the Real Chance of Love (Season 2). So you can help out edited the page.

I edited the New Tool Academy Page. So you may help out editing.

In reply to your revision of Tammy Faye Baker -- Well done, and thanks for proving a point that I had made in a workshop that I am conducting.

In doing a workshop on the accuracy of online research with university students, an argument arose as to the validity of Wikipedia in that user contributions are posted without verification and checks for accuracy.

My student asserted that information, especially small bits of information, can be placed in a Wikipedia article and not be detected for extended periods of time.

As someone who uses Wikipedia for research -- not as the final word, but as an invaluable tool for obtaining initial information and resources for addition research -- my argument was that it is generally accurate and is in a state of continual correction and refinement. The "food for worms" insertion (just a few short words) was expected to remain until at least next week's class. However, the rapidity of the correction shows that Wikipedia works remarkably well. While individually, inaccuracies may exist, on the whole, the correction mechanisms demonstrate a resource that can provide reliable information as a basis for further investigation. I will use this at next week's class.

Regards, StevenKayTrenton —Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenKayTrenton (talk • contribs) 13:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please stop reverting the changes about Mark Cronin?? All of that information is true according to the 51 Minds website and no citations are needed. I looked up his about page myself and the information about him are true. It's making it seem like that the information isn't true about him when those citation notices are there. King Shadeed 12:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I don't think we've interacted before, but I stalk Drilnoth's talkpage and I saw that he's nominated you for adminship. I see that you do a lot of work improving articles on living people, especially celebrities, improving sources and removing unsourced information. I was wondering if you do much with our BLP policy or the noticeboard. It looks like something you might be interested in. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 23:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I have read the BLP policy, but I had not seen the noticeboard. I will add that to my watch list. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You indicated in your RfA that you had posed an unanswered question regarding maximum size of a quotation under fair use - do you happen to have a link to a place you did so? It's not related to the RfA, I'm just curious. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 06:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will see if I can dig it up. It was in regard to the quotation of paragraph long episode summaries in reality television show articles (for example, on Rock of Love Bus). It's particularly interesting in this case, as quotations are actually the entire episode summary, so it could be construed as copying the "entire article." On the other hand, each summary is only a few lines long. I would have posted the question to the talk page of a user who deleted such summaries as copyright violation. I will see if I can find it. Plastikspork (talk) 06:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original question is here and some follow-up discussion here. My main lingering question is basically if quoted episode summaries is copyright violation. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 06:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: IANAL

So, when Congress passed the Copyright Act of 1976, they included section 107, which lists four non-essential, non-inclusive tests for Fair Use. The third item in §107 is "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole." The main thrust there is that you must examine quantity as well as importance - there was a case (Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises) where 300 words out of 200,000 were found to be substantial given their content. Essentially, you're right to notice a potential issue in those episode lists, since quoting the entire summary is, well, the entire summary!

Really, though, it all has to be considered along with other factors, such as the fourth (effect on the market). If, say, you were copying directly out of a TV guide, then you might be affecting the market, but normally I'd still say you're probably fine since each one would be from a different (old and therefore largely useless) guide. Still, it would be worth going through some/most of them and trying to rewrite them in your own words if possible, or only using a fraction, as quoting the entire thing really IS a poor fair use validation.

However, since all the quotes are from one page, you're essentially committing a copyright violation of that entire VH1 page. With that in mind, you're not only copying a substantial amount (all) of each individual summary, but a substantial amount (all) of the VH1 page itself. So... yeah, I'd change 'em, since as it stands, you've essentially copied the entire page into different sections. Hope that (overly exhaustive and largely irrelevant comment) helps! ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 16:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, what a thoughtful reply. I agree. I posed this question at VIO after responding to you here. Your thoughtful response might be useful there as well. I would repost it there, but I'll let you decide if you think it's a good idea, to avoid copying ;). Plastikspork (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure dude, go right ahead. Glad to be of help! ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 19:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Note to self) Check these pages. Plastikspork (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you accept my sincerest apology for the de-railment I made on your RfA, which is now on the talk page. I made my point in my oppose, and you honestly acknowledged it. It was rude of me to jump on an un-related comment for the sole purpose of arguing. :-| Sorry.--Koji† 22:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. No need to apologize, but thank you nonetheless. I am glad to see so many thoughtful, reasonable, editors debating important issues (as well as vetting my actions). Thanks again. Plastikspork (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, we're cool. :-) Thanks for the user page tweak, btw. --Koji† 00:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]