This page is an archive of past discussions for the period 1 April 2009 – 30 June 2009. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi there, I noticed that like me, you are opposed to any form of dates autoformatting. I have created some userboxes which you might like to add to your userspace to indicate your position. You will find the boxes here. Ohconfucius ( talk) 07:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
In what way was my edit vandalism? Antique Rose ( talk) 20:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for giving me the heads up on the circular references created by Alethic mood having text in "books"... derived from wikipedia. Messy. Ronabop ( talk)
Hello Phil!
As I quote above, you removed a PROD tag from the Inter City article because "it only takes a couple of seconds to verify that the book exists".
I did a search in Google for the book by Cecil J. Allen called Titled Trains of Great Britain, and I looked through the results. I can easily tell that they're unreliable.
If you don't think that the results are unreliable, think again. I can post the results AND a page from that search if you need "proof". Here are the links:
One of the resulting pages: http://www.steamindex.com/library/allen.htm
The results from the search: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=cecil+j.+allen+titled+trains+of+great+britain&meta=
Feel free to look at any of the others, but I will stress that they are unreliable.
When replying, please post {{Tb|calvinps}}
on my
talk page.
-calvinps- ( talk) 16:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry but I never made any changes to Pat Kenny!!. Would you care to explain your comment on my talk page?. 86.41.37.134 ( talk) 14:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Response here Alice.haugen ( talk • contribs) 22:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Well done. Your Proposed Deletion patrol work, addressing things with sources and being unafraid of merciless editing, sets a good example. Uncle G ( talk) 14:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Vladimir Lenin to a different title - however your request is either incomplete or has been contested for being controversial, and has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete will be removed after five days.
Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:
If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR ( talk) 19:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Re: tag removal on Ibansk.
I have added back in the original research tag which you removed: "The most admirable character is Bawler. Truth Teller is obviously Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Lesser characters are more difficult to figure out." is all original research. The article is also
If you feel the article should be improved instead of deleted, please consider adding expand or expert rather than leaving the article untagged, uncategorized, and already marked as patrolled.
Please consider, as a courtesy, posting a deprod notification and the detailed summary of why you removed the tags. Wikipedia:PROD#Before_deletion
Thanks. JCutter ( talk) 00:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
— LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I see you've edited this article. Do you have any idea what it is about? Some of it reads as if it is about a historical character, other bits just don't make sense. Do you think it should be up for deletion? Thanks, Fahrenheit 17:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
You may not have seen Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Block feedback requested. Unfortunately, Footage ( talk · contribs) has violated copyright in multiple articles. Unfortunately, your rescue work at Bhogali Bihu ( AfD discussion) was heavily polluted by xyr copyright violations, both in the text that you built upon as a foundation (to the extent that after rescue it still contained sentences lifted word-for-word from the sources) and afterwards with additional copyright violations. I expect that this is very annoying. But it is why the article has just had to be restarted from scratch. Uncle G ( talk) 15:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the help on the film page for Raduga. It was about to be deleted since it said only "1944 Russian film" and I came across the speedy delete notice while patrolling recent changes. It seemed a shame to delete an existing movie like that and looking at the internet info on the film, a seemingly important film for the period. Sadly, I had never tried making a page before and my efforts weren't completely up to film article standards. Thanks! Age Happens ( talk) 05:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for saving the little stub AYR, much appreciated. EA210269 ( talk) 06:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't get why you deleted my "silliness" sentence here ... are you moving it to a new section? It does kind of drift into another topic, maybe a topic for another day. (Watchlisting) - Dank ( push to talk) 20:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Relocated because we were veering too far offtopic for an AfD really:
I'm not arguing for or against keeping this particular article, but I must dispute the claim that notability means the same thing as exceptionalness (shouldn't that be exceptionality?). This is an encyclopedia, not the Guinness Book of Records. If every subject in a particular class passes the notability guidelines then we can have an article on every one of them, not just the exceptionally notable ones. Phil Bridger ( talk) 23:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
You voted delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton Salonen based on WP:BLP concerns. I have moved the article to Anton incident and removed the full name from the article. Meanwhile, in the real world the the diplomatic row has reached new levels. Considering how seldom formal diplomatic notes are used in Finland–Russia relations I guarantee that this story will be remembered 50 years from now (see de:Notenkrise). -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 03:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
P.S. - In case I forgot to mention it, I was asking you to reconsider your vote. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 01:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I had prodded this article, and you redirected it to a page on Third Ear Band. The only problem is, I'm far from certain this is the same Richard Coff; the one I prodded is an American, and I'm not sure he is that old (although they both play violin). Maybe we should give Richard Coff the Suzuki-method teacher a little more time to come up with some notability? And as to the other one, I'm not sure he even merits a redirect. Brianyoumans ( talk) 13:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Multiple albums isn't a claim of notability if they're on a non-notable label. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Flibbering, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flibbering. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 17:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you help find sources for Greece-Kyrgyzstan relations? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 16:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I never expected to get tips on writing style for a talk page. I think your point is well taken, but I went with the singular in this case since I want to emphasize that each and every administrator would have that obligation. Of course, I write articles differently. -- Ryan Delaney talk 21:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Richard Bamping, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Bamping. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Klein zach 10:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I saw your reversal of that spammy link with "polite" summary--but I reversed myself on the rollback of the other edit. After looking at the source again it didn't look so spammy. What do you think? Feel free to revert me. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 17:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't me, must of been someone else who had this IP address before me. 86.44.205.18 ( talk) 20:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: David Blatherwick. The reason I used that word twice was not to make it so. Each was used as a descriptor for two important things here. BLP should be sourced. POV should be sourced. Neither was appropriately so. The PROD comment was not wrong. Duffbeerforme ( talk) 15:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Pat O'Donnell, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pat O'Donnell. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.
An article that you have been involved in editing, An Bord Pleanála and the Corrib gas project, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Bord Pleanála and the Corrib gas project. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.
GainLine
♠
♥ 09:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
You are invited to revisit the article and perhaps consider any further improvements that it might require. Thank you for a chance to affect a decent rescue. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I have added references to Malaysia–Sweden relations, do you think they are sufficient, can you help out looking for more references? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 00:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
No, no inconsistency there. Quotes are used to set off shorter artistic works or single works within collections, like songs and short stories. Italics are for longer/major works, such as the books those short stories are published in or the albums those songs are included on. It's not just a Wikipedia Manual of Style thing, it's the accepted practice most everywhere. Just thought explaining the reasoning to you might help you understand the rule and apply it to other similar situations as they come up. DreamGuy ( talk) 20:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to thank you for saving my article from deletion! I don't check my account regularly and by the time I revisited, it would've been too late! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gausie ( talk • contribs) 23:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Took this and made it into THIS. Not too bad for something that was "supposed" to fails WP:NF (grin). Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi! A WikiProject Worcestershire has now been created to better manage all articles that relate in any way to the county even if they overlap with other categories or projects. Please visit the project pages and if you see listed any articles you have written or contributed to, or if you would like to see more active development of them, don't hesitate to join the project. |
Hello, I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 22:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gathania Cheers. I have responded on your comment about Gathania. Do you think this shows she is relevant? Linnea Linnea94 ( talk) 11:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the editing you made to Lodge Cottrell Ltd. I believe you have now made this into a neutral entry fit for Wikipedia. I have also now added source and categories. Guess I should have put this Under Construction (?) It is certainly a notable company and will hopefully receive valuable contibutions over time. I would welcome any further assistance you can provide on this. Jet9864 ( talk) 17:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Done – Juliancolton | Talk 20:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Just curious, was this accidental or intentional? If the latter, why did you revert that edit? -- Conti| ✉ 09:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to improve the article. I agree it is not a candidate for deletion any longer. Previously it was not even clear what teams he managed. Accurizer ( talk) 14:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Err, perhaps because of this and this? Google Books would tend to indicate that he exists... Bencherlite Talk 12:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Good catch on that, I was struggling to find a reference to show that he was actually a minister and remove the PROD. I've had the page on my watch list along with some of the other pages within the family tree. - SpacemanSpiff ( talk) 16:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course, you are better authority on what your own, "made up", rationales are, so you might want to contribute here. ☺ Uncle G ( talk) 10:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Please do not insult my intelligence. It is easy enough for someone to assume Stamford Bridge crosses Stamford Brook as they are both in West London. It is surely helpful to point out here that in fact Stamford Bridge crosses Counters Brook. There is room in the article for that little piece of information Motmit ( talk) 22:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi I noticed that you added a reference on the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading artilce. I was wondering if you would be interested in trying to sort out the mess that exists in the Category:Reading. There is a need to may be create some sub categies for reading support programs, ad may be a sub category Category:Reading instruction by country for all the the multitude of article which only refer to reading issues and orgnaistions in the USA, so that the whole Reading Categories can become more globalised. My main interest and time consuming interest i the editing Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia articles. dolfrog ( talk) 12:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I've found the root cause of the problem: Category:Hill forts in Scotland had been categorized as belonging to Category:History of Hertfordshire, and the bot's simple-minded upward category traversal found then took it at face value, and concluded that Scotland was in Hertfordshire. I've removed it from that category, which will cure the category graph weirdness as of the next dump. Stopping the bot from following arcs upwards from categories naming the UK or its constituent countries would also have caught this: I've now also added some code to do this. -- The Anome ( talk) 08:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)