User talk:Funandtrvl

US National Archives collaboration

United States National Archives WikiProject

Would you like to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the National Archives and its incredible collection? This summer, the National Archives—which houses some of America's most important historical documents—is hosting me as its Wikipedian in Residence, and I have created WP:NARA to launch these efforts. There are all sorts of tasks available for any type of editor, whether you're a writer, organizer, gnome, coder, or image guru. The National Archives is making its resources available to Wikipedia, so help us forge this important relationship! Please sign up and introduce yourself. Dominic·t 15:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you

Thank you for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and cheers! --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello

I was editing the city names, and those names are more than likely Villages, would that suffice to be put back on there?? Badgelady2000 (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Least you think that I am a complete flake,

regarding the sculpture section that you just edited at the Lafayette article, this [1] is what the Smithsonian has to say on the subject:

"The north and south pediments feature three seated historical figures. In the center is the Marquis de Lafayette, sometimes identified as George Washington, holding a sword across his lap. To his proper right is William Henry Harrison, sometimes identified as George Rogers Clark,"

Grieff, in the more or less standard work on the subject of sculpture in Indiana states, "Lafayette's visage is also among those carved on the pediments of the courthouse itself".
As Oscar Wilde once wrote (or perhaps he just said it) "The truth is seldom pure and never simple." Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, a flake is not a bad thing to be, and it was my term in any case. My girls argued for years as to whether I was a dork or a nerd. I think that they finally settled on both. Thanks for reconsidering your Lafayette edit, architectural sculpture (and sculpture in general) is my passion, so I was happy that a second look proved I was on the right track. Life is good. Carptrash (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm glad you caught that mistake!! FYI-I emailed the courthouse people your link from the Smithsonian. No response yet, I'll keep you posted. --Funandtrvl (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is one of the few places on earth where pointing out someone's error can garner a response. At best (opinion) some clerk will pass the info on to the webmaster who . ............actually quit 3 years ago and no one else . . .......... well you know how it goes. Too bad we can't just make these corrections ourselves, but, wouldn't the WWW be an interesting place if ALL websites were open editing? Carptrash (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, I know what you mean!! --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

George Washington citations

I see you've been cleaning up some of the dead link/cites in this article, thanks for keeping up with that. I didn't realize that there was even a "cite conference" template. I do have some questions about some of your changes though.

• In this edit you changed some of the references to refer to the entire Dennis Pogue paper "Shad, Wheat and Rye", the original refs had the more specific pages. For instance the first cite refers to pages 2-4, the second instance referred to pages 2-10.
• Also in the above edit, the first instance for Eleanor Breen's "A Pretty Considerable Distillery" refers to pages 209-220, the second instance refers only to page 211.

When the work itself does not change but the pages do, I usually put <ref>Author's last name, Page #<ref> or <ref>Author's name, Title, Page #</ref>. Would that be acceptable to you if I changed the second instance (of those sources being referenced, but with the different page #s) to the author name/page number variety? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think there's a way to reference using the ref name and adding the pg number. I'll look it up. Just trying to cut down on duplication--the Barack Obama article has 350+ refs and had a problem with displaying all the templates due to expansion limits. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I see that a previous editor tagged the dead links (thank goodness for keeping URLs up-to-date), but then changed the page numbers to be more generic.

• The original citation of Ref 50 has the Page # as Page 2.
• The second original citation of Ref 50 had the Page # as pages 2-4

I propose changing the cites of the various works to my more above/usual form if you have no objections. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

My form won't utilize excessive templates, just plain text and is perfectly acceptable according to MoS standards. How about if I just do that? -- Shearonink (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at Help:Shortened footnotes#In-text cite, example #2. I think that might work to link it back to the original "cite web" or "cite journal" w/o duplicating the ref. I would usually suggest to use harvard refs, but since it's a journal article, not a book, I'm not sure if that will work. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess my concern is that it would be better that it link back to the original long citation, like a harvard ref does. That makes it so much easier to figure out which ref is applicable, rather than just an all-text ref. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Another thought- what is the proper procedure for how many pages should be listed per ftnote? Do you know of any online source/style book concerning ftnotes? I tend to like to group the pages per chapter or document, instead of citing each individual page, because otherwise, the ftnote list would get mighty big on an article like Washington's. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)But it really shouldn't link to the long citation(unless you think it should link to the main/host URL?), the page numbers are different. Per chapter or per document is not as precise as per page for verifiability etc. Shearonink (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it should link to the url. What I mean is that we should use harvard refs, ie, the main citation would be listed down in the Bibliography section without page numbers (or with the page numbers for the whole document, like 1-12), then each in-text ref would have the relevant pg numbers. I know using each single pg is more precise, but do we really need to use only single page refs, instead of pairs of pages, for example? --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The article is so huge, I'm not even sure how many ref styles it has at the moment. I'm pretty sure they aren't all Harvard refs. Shearonink (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think single pages are preferable to doubles, and doubles are preferable to ranges and ranges are preferable to chapters and chapters are preferable to books. If the whole purpose of references is so that readers can verify a statement, then that statement's source information should be made as accurately accessible as possible. Shearonink (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I know that it uses many styles of refs and it's huge (as are a few of the other US presidents' articles). I just think that using harvard refs would probably look better and clean up the ref section. When I get some time, I can format the sources under "Bibliography" to add the "|ref=harv". Right now, you should add the correct pg numbers into the refs, in the manner that you prefer, and we can start cleaning up some more of the refs later, when we have time, thanks. --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Funandtrvl. You have new messages at Closeapple's talk page.
Message added 05:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Closeapple (talk) 05:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Food and drink categories

I noticed you tagged some categories for deletion. Usually these categories are kept even when they are empty; what's up in this case? — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been working on {{WPFOOD}} all week, the categories that are listed for deletion are no longer populated by the template, that's why they're tagged that way. You can see which categories are currently in use by the WPFOOD template by looking for "_CAT" in the tmp code. --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought was up. I can delete them, I'll just go through the ones you have tagged. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, thank you. --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

TYVM

Thank you for completing the category removal of all those dead WikiProjects & Task Forces. I have been working on them off and on for months now and those finished up that particular task. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! I could see that you were working hard on them. I thought I'd help, since it is a very big job for just one person! --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The assessment pages all are spelled with a lower case "A", the template was originally configured to use them that way. In fact all sub-pages of all the project & task force pages use the lower case formatting structure, as set forth in HTML style guides. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

TYVM Mk. II

		The Food and Drink Barnstar
		I want to thank you for all of the hard work you have been doing on the categorization and templates lately. Good job! Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

TYVM! You made my Thanksgiving weekend! --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandal

Let the vandal be. I have already reported him. | ^help_dןǝɥ | 21:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, Funandtrvl, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Ramesh Ramaiah ^talk 02:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Look at Index of energy articles need feedback help on talk page ideas

Look at Index of energy articles need feedback help on talk page ideas. Awesome editing job by the way.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I'll take a look, probably within next day or two. Cheers, --Funandtrvl (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative

Hi Funandtrvl,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Helpful Bot, I have (hopefully) clarified my comments on the appropriate page. Thank you. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

Hi,

Yesterday, on January 21st, I added a date to the Wikipedia page about said day. Only few minutes later the page was been reset by you, claiming it would "not appear to be constructive".

But it is. In fact, this very day January 21st 2012 might be the greatest and most important date since October 10th 2010 for a certain, constantly growing subculture, Bronies to be precise. It may not be crucial for you, but for these people all other the world it is. On that day the Brony-Community was initially fully acknowledged by the show and the creators. It never happened before in the history of television that a originally not target group fandom influenced a show in that dimension as it happened on that for Bronies historical day.

I know my entry wasn't really much formulated since I was to busy jumping around in joy, but still I demand the right to add an article about something important on Wikipedia, even if it's only for a certain group of people.

Yours sincerely

Benjamin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmt Brony (talk • contribs) 19:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No matter what, you need to cite a source, see: WP:Citing sources. --Funandtrvl (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's a little hard to do since it depends on something said in a TV show. I can link to the youtube video, but you never know how long it will still be up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmt Brony (talk • contribs) 15:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Getting back to the reason why I removed your alleged entry [2] (which was made by an anonymous IP, so there is no way to verify that it was you) ---it has to meet the Verifiability policy. If there isn't a reliable source, then it doesn't belong in WP. Sorry. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Escaped parser functions in template docs

Hi. When you cleaned up the code for Template:Infobox holiday/doc some time ago, you escaped the entire template code using <pre></pre>. This, however, had the undesirable result of escaping the {{#time}} parser functions which were used to generate dates for parameters and should have been displayed as years on the documentation page. Articles in which the code was used verbatim subsequently had their dates messed up when the year changed. I've fixed the documentation page in question, but you might want to check if there are any other similar pages. Thanks. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing it! --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Parsing at Template:Category diffuse

Hi, I noticed this edit to Template:Category diffuse; whether or not that edit contributed to the problem, you can probably help! Please see Template talk:Category diffuse#Problem with parameters. – Fayenatic (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Ian Rose discusses article assessments

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

World Factoring Yearbook

I'm leaving this message as you're listed as a current participant of WikiProject Business. I was informed yesterday that the current World Factoring Yearbook (circa £150) is now free for download as an ebook. It's a matter of filling out this form. I'm not sure if you'll find this useful as a reliable source, but I thought I should let you know that it's freely available online. I apologise in advance if this doesn't interest you! All the best, The Cavalry (Message me) 14:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Off-topic-inline

Template:Off-topic-inline has been nominated for merging with Template:Relevance note. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 17:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

TV transmitter

Hi, can you please explain why you've removed Category:Broadcasting in article TV Transmitters? Thanks.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, because I was sorting articles into more specific sub-categories of the parent/container Broadcasting category. That is why I was putting any type of "transmitter" into the "Broadcast transmitters" category. Hope this explains my method! --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

World tourism rankings

According to statistics of the Israeli Ministry of Tourism, in 2010, 3.5 milion tourists arrived to Israel. http://www.tourism.gov.il/GOVheb/Ministry%20of%20Tourism/Tourism%20Development/Documents/report%20-%202010.pdf (in Hebrew,page 4}.

Disrespectful

Hey, why you call my edit a "test edit". You do this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Arab_towns_and_villages_depopulated_during_the_1948_Palestinian_exodus&diff=479362935&oldid=479049749. That was not a "test edit". That was a valid edit. This church is in East Jerusalem, not Israel. You're bullying tactics of reverting with false summaries is not acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nassiriya (talk • contribs) 19:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC) I have undid the edit. Don't just remove my edit again, there is no consensus for that category!

The reason I called it a test edit, is because there was an extra character, an "i", next to the category for 1140s architecture. I should have also stated that my edit was for restoring categories that were removed with no consensus. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

But you can add categories with no consensus? Why only removal has to have consensus? Other people write that addition must have consensus. What are the rules? But I'm sorry for extra "i", but that doesn't make me edit a "test edit". Thank you.