User talk:Cedders

Please leave a message for me below by clicking here. Happy Thursdays.

/Archive

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions

... Again, welcome! --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 11:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced its a sockpuppet and they aren't even really editing. I'm watching the page and will take action as I feel justified. Cheers. Sasquatch t|c 23:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please reply at: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Editing_tags

Hi, not to be rude to the person who originally designed them, but I think the tags over the editing box are really quite ugly. Also not very discriptive, when they should be to screamingly obvious to highlight how helpful they really are. After activly editing for over 6 months now, I have only just taken it apon myself to check out what they all actually do. Some of them are agreeably useless (to me), but things like signing and redirect are just amazing! The amount of times I have searched for a redirect page just to copy and paste the template to create various new redirect pages is rediculas, and could have been helped only if the tags were sufficiently idiot-proof, and designed to fit in with this age of pretty shiny buttons (rather than fit in with the age of windows 95). I think age they are on every edit page, and are visable to every editor, effort should be made to make them as perfect as possible. Just like the amount of time that clearly went on our wonderful Main Page --mastodon 23:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please be a bit more specific? Which symbols could be more descriptive and how? The signature one is a picture of a signature, which I think is intuitive, although it could perhaps be placed furthest to the right as it is the last thing used when editing. '#R' is esoteric until you have created a redirect, and it then becomes recognisable; it could resemble [1] but readers don't encounter that symbol often either. As for the general design, it reminds me of Netscape 6/7 chrome skin, and not Windows 95. The buttons stand out from the background of the monobook skin, which makes them more functional than aesthetic. --Cedders^tk 09:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking perhaps having simply a discriptive word on each button with an "Insert..." written above their containing line. As for how they stand out against the skin, I hadn't thought of that, you make a good point. Although, I'm sure there are other ways of increasing their contrast, such as is present in Windows XP, when your attention is needed on a button, a complimentary colour is used (in the blue luna interface, this corrisponds to orange). Perhaps a shiny dark button with a discriptive word would be appropriate? mastodon 12:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your message on the talk page there. I thank you for your continued input and constructive criticism and look forward to gaining more input from you. Thanks, Charlie^{( t | e )} 05:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Ceeders,

thanks for your note. I'll answer the band one first, since that one's dead easy: WP:MUSIC has no relevance whatsoever to whether or not an article can be speedied. We're concerned about whether the article asserts notability, with "notability" interpreted very broadly indeed; saying "they released an album" counts in this case.

As for Jon Morby, well, redirect it wherever the merged content has gone. If you can't find that place, then it hasn't been merged and I invite you to do so at your convenience. For what it's worth, Fido.net is rather famous, while I've never heard of the other company. Also, if it helps, User:Jmorby is quite different from the Jon Morby article. By the by, have you tried talking to Mr Morby about the article? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morning .. no-one has approached Jon Morby to discuss any of this. Generally the view taken was rather than having misleading information online about Fido.net Fidonet Opus-CBCS Redmail and so on, Jon made sure the content was accurate whilst trying to ensure it wasn't all "puff". But no, no-one has contacted him regarding this or the recent copyvio put on Opus-CBCS - an article originally written by Wynn Wagner III and reproduced with his permission (originally granted in 1998 and assumed going forwards). The copyvio seems to actually relate to a link which is a mirror of the original article ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmorby (talk • contribs) 18 June 2006

just a note that the deletion did happen in due course, and for clarity, there is a huge difference between FidoNet and Fido.net. --Cedders^tk 09:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment. --Karnesky 15:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cedders and thank you for your contributions on articles related to The Apprentice UK. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject The Apprentice UK, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of The Apprentice UK and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out and participate, please come over and visit us here for more information. Thanks! Dalejenkins 21:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your tips on my talkpage, appreciate it! I normally do a search on articles before marking as db-bio anyhow, might have missed it on that one though! Cheers again! Poeloq 21:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A template you created, Template:Backlinks, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 04:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Dr Robert Buckman.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Depression_(physiology), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? raven1977 (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note the main question here is whether ambiguous links to depression referring this definition can or should (a) be left ambiguous; (b) be directed to a particular definition on wiktionary (preferred option if technically possible); (c) be removed; or (d) go to a landing page at least for the time being. I've removed the prod, pending further discussion. --Cedders^tk 09:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will help you here as much as necessary, at least about the Kipling part of things--I urge you to actually find some references, as mentioned on the List talk page, since they will exist, and build up the individual articles. Consider some preemptive merging. I'm thinking of Messua's husband into Messua, When I work on video and such, I';m working on trying to keep some articles on things where a/I have no interest in the work itself and b/I am not really familiar with how to find what references there are in the specialised sources which exist. Quite the opposite here in both respects. However, it will be very difficult for me to add much in the next few days, so see what you can do till then.DGG (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...for your help with the article Common People. Should the "Shatner Version"(Folds version, really) be split off into another article? What if it gets much bigger?

Was the original also quite unknown outside of the USA? What about Canada and Australia? Chrisrus (talk) 06:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cedders! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 687 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Richard Gordon (film producer) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for leaving a message on my userpage, and also for clarfiying the anomality I had spotted on the talk page of the article on Wikileaks. This information was helpful and does help to clarify the mattter. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article and I cannot find any saying which sounds comical. If you could state what you object to, that would really help with my correcting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MayorOfIacon (talk • contribs)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, and yes that does seem to carry the message more effectively. Britmax (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cedders. I noticed that you used therichest.com as a source for biographical information in Daryl Hannah. Please note that the general consensus as expressed at WP:RSN is that therichest.com does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks.--Ronz (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't see why the current '==' h2 heading shouldn't suffice. Wouldn't it also be possible for the software to parse existing signatures and indentation?"

hi 👋 I was re-reading the discussion around the Talk Page Consultation when I came across the comment you made (quoted above). It stuck me that you might be curious to know, at this moment, we're working on the very thing you alluded to. That work is happening on Phabricator, in this ticket: T232780. Anyway, just thought I'd drop by to share this on the off chance this was interesting. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Helen Goodman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael White. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]