User talk:Buggie111/Archive 8#Precious

|}

I noticed the message on my talk page yesterday and have been meaning to get back to you. There's more work to be done, but I think the list is better than when I first saw it. The lead is short, but that can be fixed. Take care of these, and the list should be on its way to having a chance at FLC. This is not a comprehensive list of every nit-pick that can be taken care of, but the most important concerns I have are below:

• One thing you asked about was what to add to the lead to make it longer. I see several possibilities for content that you can get another paragraph out of. You can mention who was selected during the team's first season (nobody), the first Texans players to be chosen for the game, and the most recent. In addition, you can say which year the Texans had the highest number of players selected, other years with numerous picks, and years when nobody was chosen. There's a good-sized paragraph worth of prose in those items.
• Usually in tables with yearly elements, we have the year on the left side of the table, not the right.

::Done. Buggie111 (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• If I'm not mistaken, the Pro Bowl dates back to before 1970. That was just the year it became an AFC–NFC game.

::Done. Buggie111 (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• The bolding in the third sentence violates the Manual of Style and serves little purpose. That's something that should be removed before FLC.

::Done.Buggie111 (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• The key correctly has a symbol for the green-colored item, but none of the applicable entries do.

::Done.Buggie111 (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Sortability is one aspect that can elevate a list. I wouldn't expect to see an image or stats column sortable, but there's no reason that the others couldn't be given sorting. That would make it easy to search within the list for any characteristics of interest. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I"ve put in a request at WP:RB to get pics of Walker, Glenn, and Mathis into the article, I"ve seen some in the internet, but am not sure on their availability of use. Will wait for that to be completed before a FLC. Buggie111 (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

{{helpme-helped}}

I"ve been trying to make several columns in List of Houston Texans Pro Bowl selections sortable, per the comment above. However, it's throwing the table off (so that headers appear on top of each other). Any help? Buggie111 (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

:Done, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Houston_Texans_Pro_Bowl_selections&diff=520429144&oldid=520425877 here's how]. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do not place or replace any non-free images to any pages except for actual articles, as you did at Portal:American football/Selected game or play/3. Such use is a clear violation of point number 9 of our policy concerning the use of non-free images. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

:Derp Derp. Should have remembered that I was warned for this earlier. Buggie111 (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

::Since that page was last edited over a year ago I figured it was just a memory lapse. No worries. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

right

The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Cwmhiraeth}}, our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: {{ul|Dreamafter}} (2007), {{ul|jj137}} (2008), {{ul|Durova}} (2009), {{ul|Sturmvogel 66}} (2010) and {{ul|Hurricanehink}} (2011). Our final standings were as follows:

1. {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Cwmhiraeth}}
2. {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Sasata}}
3. {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Grapple X}}
4. {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Casliber}}
5. {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Muboshgu}}
6. {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Miyagawa}}
7. {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Ruby2010}}
8. {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Dana boomer}}

Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.

• The featured article award goes to {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Grapple X}}, for four featured articles in the final round.
• The good article award also goes to {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Grapple X}}, for 19 good articles in the second round.
• The list award goes to {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Muboshgu}}, for three featured lists in the final round.
• The topic award goes to {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Grapple X}}, for three good topics (with around 40 articles) in round 4.
• The did you know award goes to {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Cwmhiraeth}}, for well over 100 DYKs in the final round.
• The news award goes to {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|ThaddeusB}}, for 10 in the news items in round 3.
• The picture award goes to {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Grandiose}}, for two featured pictures in round 2.
• The reviewer award goes to both {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Ruby2010}} (14 reviews in round 1) and {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Grandiose}} (14 reviews in round 3).
• Finally, for achieving an incredible bonus point total in the final round, and for bringing the top-importance article frog to featured status, a biostar has been awarded to {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Cwmhiraeth}}.

Awards will be handed out in the coming days; please bear with us! This year's competition also saw fantastic contributions in all rounds, from newer Wikipedians contributing their first good or featured articles, right up to highly experienced Wikipedians chasing high scores and contributing to topics outside of their usual comfort zones. It would be impossible to name all of the participants who have achieved things to be proud of, but well done to all of you, and thanks! Wikipedia has certainly benefited from the work of this year's WikiCup participants.

Next year's WikiCup will begin in January. Currently, discussions and polls are open, and all contributions are welcome. You can also sign up for next year's competition. There will be no further newsletters this year, although brief notes may be sent out in December to remind everyone about the upcoming competition. It's been a pleasure to work with you all, and we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Buggie111, why did you remove my edits on the Stanley Appel page? I can assure you that each of these statements are utterly true - from the horse's mouth, as it is!

Stanley Appel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stan appel (talk • contribs) 15:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

:Hello Mr. Appel, and welcome to Wikipedia. The reason your edits were deleted is not because they were false, it's because they weren't notable information, that is, they weren't all that important. Imagine if every biographical article on Wikipedia informed the reader of everything the subject did in life, from his breakfast routine to his preferred slipper color. That would be quite a mess some readers would have too look for to find anything important. Because of this, Wikipedia limits the amount of detailed stuff you can put into an article, although the link for such a policy escapes me at the second. But to bring up your point on truth, even if your edit did involve adding important, notable information (i.e., "Stanley Appel saved 59 children from the 20xx Anytown Orphenage Fire"), it would need to be backed up by a reliable source, not just the verbal confirmation of the subject. A couple of links you ought to read are WP:COI and WP:OR. If you have any more questions regarding Wikipedia, please, don't hesitate to ask me. Buggie111 (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply. Although I can understand why you would remove my "breakfast routine", I don't understand why you would remove my date and place of birth, for example?

Stanley Appel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stan appel (talk • contribs) 16:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

:Ah. Didn't see that. that part has been restored, although do please find a reliable source for it (I'll get to work on that myself in my free time). Also, please sign using ~~~~, it automatically creates your username and a timestamp. Buggie111 (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the [http://wikipedia.grouplens.org/SuggestBot/consent-info-en.html consent information sheet].

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low File:Green cross.svg to High File:Green cross.svg File:Green cross.svg File:Green cross.svg. The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

{{talkback|Wifione|Help_on_your_RfA_question_for_me.|ts=00:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)}}

Wifione ^Message 00:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I haven't.

What is it so urgent you can't put on my talk page anyway? Plutonium27 (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)~

:Strange, I thought I sent it to you. It's a private matter, at least by my opinion. I"ll resend it to you later today. Buggie111 (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

:: It went to my Junk mail, which is why I didn't see it straight away. Sorry about that. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

:::I'll provide the feedback you requested but here, not in private. Let me know. Rgds. Leaky Caldron 14:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

::::Sure. What should I let you know of, again? Buggie111 (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

:::::You requested clarification of my oppose in your RFA last December. Leaky Caldron 14:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

::::::I agree, I did. I also agree to you posting it here. Does "Let me know. Rgds." imply anythign else I need to do? Buggie111 (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

::::::IIRC and having re-read the RFA, there were some concerns expressed by editors about some of your responses to a few of the questions. My point, looking at your run at the time, was even if your answers had been fully endorsed I would have hesitated to support on the basis that my overall impression was that it was premature. I do not have fixed criteria and I tend to rely on others to determine technical competence. I look for characteristics such as lack of previous controversy, maturity, ability to communicate effectively and the degree to which a candidate stays clear of drama boards when they are not directly involved in an issue. In other words I prefer mature, experienced anonymity to inexperienced and/or grandstanding candidates. I felt that you needed a while longer. Hope this helps. Leaky Caldron 10:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

:::::::Understood. Thanks. Buggie111 (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

{{tmbox

|smallimage=25px

|smalltext=

|small=yes

}}

I can't seem to get 1a or 1b to show, they just come up as Pending. Any help? Buggie111 (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

:You added your comments inside the {{tlx|GATable/item|1a|n|}} template, where the template needs to be completed before you add your comment. {{diff|Talk:SS John Burke/GA1|522406484|522405554|I fixed the page}} for you so you can see what was wrong. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

::Thanks for the help. It seemed to work just fine for the other criteria, though. Buggie111 (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Why did you remove "Alhist" ? It is a slang word and quite common from where i come from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibba1234 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

:The article made no mention of it being a slang word in a specific area and said about the same things that are said at Confidence trick. It would end up as a redirect to that page if you showed that "alhist" was used in your area to describe that. Regards, Buggie111 (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed your comments regarding my RfA nomination. How do I go about creating the page you requested, and what information should be included on it? --TommyBoy (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

:It's a page needed to view your edits using X's edit counter. Just click on the link and write anything, then submit. Buggie111 (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

:Thanks! I've got to do something with all the languages I learn. Buggie111 (talk) 14:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your recent edit. You're welcome to restore it, but I would suggest that you might wish to rephrase it a bit less confrontationally, and more clearly show how it is addressing the request under discussion. - jc37 02:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

:Confrontational? Must be my eyesight, because I didn't notice anything wrong with it. I agree it was a bit out of place and off-topic, and I'd like to apologize if it was seen as confrontational. I couldn't really find where to put a smiley in the sentence, so I gambled and I take it I lost. Buggie111 (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

::I'll happily accept that I may have misread the tone your comment. And as I said, please feel free to restore. - jc37 02:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)