User talk:Logical Fuzz: Difference between revisions

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Welcome!

Hello, Logical Fuzz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Great job on removing fansite links (which I loathe and basically gave up on trying to remove!) and other gnoming tasks! Pinkadelica♣ 06:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for demonstrating your great cleanup skills in the KSM (band) article!  Gongshow Talk 19:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Logical Fuzz. For a first timer's report to WP:AIV, you did very well! However, I declined your report because the IP editor has not been sufficiently warned - usually, we use the four warning system in which we warn a user four times for vandalism before blocking. Some suggested reading: Wikipedia:Vandalism. Hope that helps to answer your question. Kind regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, on your question on the Wikipedia talk:AIV page, we generally give the user 4 chances to make constructive edits. I understand this user may only be a vandalism-only account, but there is still the chance that he/she will change and make constructive edits. You generally only report a user after their final warning (Level 4). In your case, you should undo the user's edits, then warn him/her on his talk page; when you reach the 5th warning, then you should report the user :). If you have any more questions about reporting or ANYTHING about WikiPedia, feel free to ask me on my talk page. --Addihockey ^(t/c) 01:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - it's Addihockey again. Actually, there is a tool that helps you with reverting vandalism :) 3 of them in fact. One that any user can use is called Twinkle. It reverts vandalism and then opens up the user's talk page so you can warn them. There is also another tool called rollback. It's a single-click way to revert vandalism. The tool I use personally, is called Huggle, it is a program that automatically detects suspicious edits and semi-automatedly reverts vandalism with a single click. Rollback is a tool only trusted users can get. I suggest you get about 300 edits and then you may apply at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback. You can tell them I recommended you :). --Addihockey ^(t/c) 17:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on Ethan Peck. Your changes are a big improvement to that article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at my talk page was just fine... I see you are relatively new here. By its nature, Wikipedia can be a bit intimidating for newer users (there is tons to learn), so feel free to ask me any sort of question you want at any time. I am online almost every single day and will be happy to help in any way I can. Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Logical!

There is no mass/disclosure policy, which was the whole point of my summary. The editor was trying to get around WP:SPOILER by claiming the summary was too long, and disclosed too much. I simply reverted (and have done so several times before) on the basis that trying to cut the summary for any reason that suggests spoilers (and episode content isn't a spoiler after it's run anyway) is not acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines. Hope you're enjoying editing and were properly welcomed. It's great to have you among us! Drmargi (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I had misunderstood your summary, I thought there *was* a policy, but it wasn't applicable there, so I wanted to read up on it. I appreciate the explanation. Like I said, I'm trying to learn, and there are so many guidelines! --Logical Fuzz (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Coral Bay is pretty likely to be Rosie. Look at the edit history, and check out the articles edited, dates of activity, etc. Then take a look at her talk page. Same issues with edits and edit warring. Doesn't take a genius... Drmargi (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking they are one and the same too, for the same reasons. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking it. I was feeling bad for assuming...but the editor seemed kind of "familiar." I guess I wasn't imagining it! --Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was obvious almost immediately. I've addressed her as Rosie in a couple talk page comments, and haven't been corrected. Drmargi (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I saw your fix earlier. Anything you can do to keep ratings data accurate and complete is OK in my book. I'd always go with the most accurate and complete ratings. That means the finals. The "fast nationals" are estimates, and have tremendous over-estimation error (and this for a ratings system that has such huge error across the board they don't report their confidence intervals.) Ideally, I'd prefer Live + 7 Day because they're the most complete ratings, despite some people's hue and cry that they're not what the industry uses, to which I reply, "So what?" But they're hard to find consistently, so we have to take what's available to us. I'd definitely go with the final ratings.

While we're on the subject, I'll tell you what else bugs me: the people who take the fast national rating for the first half hour of a show and the second half hour of a show and average them. No way can you do that, so any averaged ratings figures are wrong. I'm not a big fan of posting ratings, particularly once a season has ended, because there are so many problems with them -- the trouble with having had so many graduate statistics courses myself.

Hope my long winded reply helps. Drmargi (talk) 07:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, why would you think I'd be offended? You paid me a complement, and I appreciated it! Drmargi (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For images from flickr, only those marked strictly CC-BY or CC-BY-SA are allowed. Both the "NC" and "ND" parts of the Lafferty image are considered problems. "No derivatives" is unfree because of the whole wiki nature of WP - just as one can edit and modify other people's text, we want to be able to edit any images. As for the "noncommercial" part, although Wikipedia itself is not considered commercial, it is expected that others should be able to use the content commercially if they so desire; the classic example given is selling printed copies of Wikipedia. The general concepts of what constitutes allowable free content are described more at Commons:COM:L; the short form is that images should be usable by anyone, for any purpose. --dave pape (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically re filmography tables.

Hi. I've undone a bit of an edit you made, recently. The hard-coding of such formatting is under review at WT:ACTOR#Filmography and the extant problem should not be made worse during the discussion. Please feel free to opine there; there are a lot of better proposals on offer. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 19:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I did not know there was a dispute. Clearly, I will refrain from "upgrading" tables to the "standard" while the said standard is under dispute. I was in no way trying to make the matter worse. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'm sure you meant well. The site "standard" is the use of class="wikitable"—all the rest is quite problematic. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 20:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fyi, the above RfC is now properly closed. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's no bother at all. My ideal IMDB template would be *{{imdb|111111|Joe Actor}} . *{{imdb}} works only if the exact name of the Wikipedia article matches the exact name of the IMDB page (so somebody named "Joe Smith" would be pretty much screwed). *{{imdb|111111}} works, but if the Wikipedia article is named "Joe Smith (actor)", then the IMDB link at the bottom of the page would read "Joe Smith (actor)" instead of "Joe Smith", which is ungainly (adding the name field helps us choose what name we want to appear on the link). As for some other parts included in the template - all the ones I deleted here ("name", "id=", "name=") - they're totally useless and add nothing. I can't imagine why anyone would want to keep them. So, my ideal would be *{{imdb|111111|Joe Actor}} - but that's just me. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

§§. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not vandalism, it's on IMDb! Do you at least read things before you destroy them? Dgarq (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your continued addition of non-cited material is being treated as vandalism. Find a reliable source, or stop! It's that simple. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make such a Logical? Fuzz about this!... Dgarq (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source with commas!... How intellectually arrogant of you!... That SOURCE is no different that every other source I've seen mentioned for other actors, and it is a web publication with a certain degree of presentation and quality. You're just picking with things. You're the vandal! Dgarq (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]