Does this list of contributions + edit summaries remind you of anyone? -- roundhouse0 17:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I did a bit more browsing of the contribs list of OfficePuter ( talk · contribs), and this looks very much like Pastorwayne: same sort of articles edited, same sty;e of writing, same style of edit summaries, same style of prolific creation of categories, etc. Given the rate at which the creation of dubious categories was proceeded, I have blocked OfficePuter as a suspected sockpuppet, without waiting for the results of the checkuser request. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
BTW, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pastorwayne confirmed User:OfficePuter as a likely sockpuppet of PW. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
If he was unblocked at this point, would you still seek a community ban? (See: User talk:Pastorwayne#Re-Indefinitely blocked) I hope this finds you well. Vassyana 15:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
70.106.130.112 categories, UM, Ohio, burials. -- roundhouse0 15:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I am thinking of retreating somewhat from Wikipedia as it seems difficult to avoid getting bogged down in matters such as this (or in your case 'The troubles' - goodness). The PW stuff is best seen via test6. I would have thought it might be worth listing all the suspect PW-clones and ips (I have 11, 2 of which are perhaps historical) at checkuser and asking for links between any of them (and asking which are Ohio-based). The various check links on test6 such as Check 6 are to recent changes to various pages which ought to pick up suspected SPs (none recently). -- roundhouse0 09:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Typo: "but the existence of non-trivial coverage". [1] Tyrenius 17:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I see you used an indefinite block here, would it be possible to shorten it for, say, 6 months to 1 year? I don't like the idea of having indef blocked IPs hanging around, since people move and they eventually get rotated :) -- lucasbfr talk 17:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually I have provided an expanded explanation now. So if you could please place it back that would be great. Thanks. -- Behnam 21:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. About a month ago we had a discussion on a move from Afghanistani singers ---> Afghan singers and Afghanistani musicians ---> Afghan musicians. Please see herefor Afghanistan singers and here for Afghanistani musicians. As you can so the consensus was to opppose and keep the categories as Afghanistani singers and Afghanistan musicians. Yet the admin mistakenly moved it to "Afghan musicisn/singers". Can you please correct this? Thanks. -- Behnam 21:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism account User:212.85.1.38. Baronetcy edits reverted by Counter-Rev; Other reversions need to be done. - Kittybrewster (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Did you ever or do you still attend Coram Deo Academy? -- In His service Hodie Dodie 17:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I seen your discussion on Kittybrewers talkpage, in connection with that I e-mailed Sinn Féin in feb 2006 in regards to use images or content from their Website for use on another wiki, and posted the reply here in which they state that any content of their site is public domain and can be reproduced.-- Padraig 08:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Note that the Scottish Government has an images section which states that they can be used "use by the media or other organisations as illustrations to accompany information on the process and function of government. Crown Copyright applies. Any pictures downloaded from this section should be used appropriately and within context" [2] Astrotrain 19:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
You may want to check out the contributions [3] of User:CELTICROVER. He's becoming a bit of a nuisance on (mostly Irish) articles adding in fictional stuff about himself. Scolaire 14:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Has been resurrected yet again at List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy. My feeling is that the reorganisation isn't enough to save it from a G4, but it's different enough that I don't really want to delete it without a second opinion. Any thoughts? — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification - its appreciated. Traditional unionist 09:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
please block User:User44130. - Kittybrewster (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, BrowhHairedGirl. A week or so ago I posted a cfr proposing that Category:Homophobia be renamed to Category:Anti-LGBT activism, which you closed pretty quickly. I've noticed that my cfr displays as a cfd on the category's talk page. I was wondering why it was closed so quickly and what caused it to be displayed as a cfd. Thanks. Citadel18080 13:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Category:Scottish Conservative and Unionist MP stubs
The proposal with these was to include both predecessor parties (though granted I didn't originally make that explicit on the category page). If anything, I'd have thought that the Unionists would be the questionable inclusion, if either was problematic: why wouldn't one want to include the ur-Tories? Or do we just have a miscommunication here? On a related note, the Category:Conservative MP (UK) stubs are oversized again, if you have any further thoughts on what's the best (or least worst) axis on which to re-split... Alai 19:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you have been ott here. Going from a welcome message to an indefinite block in 3 hours? It looks like newbie biting to me. Remember that new users don't necessarily understand how wikipedia works. Catchpole 10:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Greetings: I'm posting this note for each of the five editors who left a comment on the CFD for Category:Muslim Holocaust deniers prior to my own comments on the subject. I'm seriously puzzled by the complete lack of response to my comments, as I was anticipating a very thoughtful exchange of views. But after 3 entire days, not a single reply. I honestly don't know what to make of it.
In any event, please consider this a personal request for your response to my remarks. As I said, I'm looking forward to a thoughtful discussion. Regards, Cgingold 11:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello again, BHG - If you can spare another couple of minutes of your precious time, would you be good enough to take a look at my response to Izak at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 24#Category:Jewish_Orthodox_anti-Zionists. Regardless of where you come out on this (or anything else), I consider you a very conscientious editor. (I guess I should stop there so you don't feel like I'm trying to influence you!) Anyway, I look forward to seeing your remarks, whatever they may be. Regards, Cgingold 13:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
PS - I also came up with another suggestion re Category:Circumnavigators blah blah blah. What do you think of Category:Pedestrian circumnavigators? (sorry, I've forgotten what date that CFD was, but I know it's still open) -- Just went back & looked: it's the 25th
You, Alison, Giano and me are all agreeing on something - is this a first? All we need now is Kittybrewster & I think that's the set... — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
This fellow is of some significance here in British Columbia. The article suggests that after retirement, he became an MP. I assume that means your parliament. Could you point me to any kind of index that would verify this claim? I can't find anything to confirm this. -- KenWalker | Talk 03:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
No worries, I missed the reference I'm afraid, & was too snappy anyway - rather a bad hair day. I should be the one apologising, and I do. It's good to see you back on the block btw. There was a wierd period 2 weeks or so ago when no-one seemed to be commenting on debates. Johnbod 13:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
[4]. I'm afraid I'm bothering you with this as you're the only admin I can see about! The edits being made cannot be allowed to remain, even if what it is removing is unreferenced. In placed the removing is highly, highly selective. Traditional unionist 14:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Purely because I don't want you accused of bias there there is none - you haven't actually warned me yet! Traditional unionist 14:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for your note, BHG. As Johnbod just said, glad you decided to come back. I think my, er, "baptism" at CFD would have been much more bearable -- hell, even enjoyable -- if you had been around. Don't ya know, I jumped in big-time not long after you departed for the summer. (Just my luck.)
So anyway, I mainly came by to mention that we now officially have (drumroll, please) Category:Pedestrian circumnavigators of the globe. And more importantly, to tell you that when I read your remark about "emergency vehicles for British Conservatives" I burst out laughing so hard that I damn near woke my wife up in the other room -- and then I would have had to explain how I'm carrying on with this brown-haired Irish lass with a wicked sense of humor... LOL - Believe it or not, I've gone back to that discussion several times to see how it closed, and each time I saw your comment I burst out laughing all over again. (Really!) Cgingold 15:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Seems to be in Limbo once again, and the natives are seemingly getting restless (see Orange Institution for the latest kerfluffle, as you know :)). Obviously, we need to get folks used to the fact that it looks likely that the law of the land going forward is going to be 1 Revert per WEEK (not counting reverts of anonymous IP addresses).
As a suggestion, do you think that all of the admins involved could impose a "psuedo-probation" on these users until ArbCom's end? SirFozzie 15:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I have taken to monitoring and editing this article as it has been repeatedly vandalised and despite my requests for it to be protected from further editing this has not happened. The statement that her majority was reduced in 2005 is true however adds nothing to the article and the statement that she "made clear she no longer relished her role" is untrue and therefore I am sure that it could not be substantiated.
Other malicious edits that have taken place have accused her of endorsing drug taking to 18 year olds and misrepresenting her position in the removal of Charles Kennedy using emotive language to cast this MP in a very poor light.
Whilst I no this does not really matter I would like to point out that she is my MP and has been a great help to me when I have written to her so I feel that protecting her from malicious online attavcks is the least I can do.
If I have inadvertantly caused an incomplete sentance or some other mistake I do appolgise.
yours
Nathan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.198.223 ( talk) 86.143.198.223
Thankyou for you carefully considered comments, I accept all of your points with only one caveat.
Her role in the deposition of Charles Kennedy has been used as a negative regarding her career by her political opponants who I believe originally posted it as part of her biography. Whilst there is nothing factually innacurate about the current inclusion that I see you have references. Your own reference lists 11 initial MP's only one other of whom have this as an entry in their wikipedia biography. Indeed Ed Davey who wrote the letter than Sandra Gidley Later Signed, has no mention on his wikipedia entry about the episode at all. For this reason I would venture that it's inclusion can be seen as negative rather than neutral.
otherwise I am happy that someone else has been paying such close attnetion as previous posts as I mentioned were quite clearly negative an in several cases completely untrue.
yours
Nathan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.198.223 ( talk) 23:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that, [7]. Regards -- Domer48 08:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you comment on this content dispute please? [8] Thanks, Valenciano 13:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, BHG: I very nearly passed on it, but then I wound up posting a novel and I think important proposal on Category:Jewish football players which I hope you'll be able to find time to give some serious thought to. Cgingold 15:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi BHG, The Olmec are obviously on the curriculum of US schools and the article is getting a lot of puerile IP address and school vandalism at the moment. Could you semi-protect the page so that only registered users can edit it. Semi-protection has worked well on Alcoholism to reduce inane edits. Nunquam Dormio 06:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
So I was playing a little with WatchFlickr the other day, looking for pictures in Category:Pennsylvania railroads and noticed that it was trying to dredge out pictures for some articles that really didn't seem apropos. Upon further inspection, the cause seems to be that WatchFlickr iterates through subcategories, and the categories for major railroads passing through Pennsylvania (e.g., Category:Amtrak, Category:CSX) are all subcategories of Pennsylvania railroads. Now, neither of those two railroads operates exclusively in Pennsylvania, so it seems to me that while the Amtrak and CSX articles belong in the Pennsylvania railroads category, their categories do not. I am tempted to break open a can of WP:BOLD and go in and change them, but I know I've seen similar patterns of categorization elsewhere on Wikipedia (it's why WP:MILHIST's bot-tabulation of article ratings gathers in half the encyclopedia). Since I know you are wise in the ways of CfD, I thought I would ask you if you know of any discussion about this sort of semantics, and whether this (IMO overbroad) categorization has advocates before I start laying into the rail categories. Choess 14:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe WP:POINT wasn't the ideal place to point at, but I still think you would have made your point far more efficiently without such heavy sarcasm. Heck, just not using the ridiculous name as if it was the proposal (but still mentioning it) would have been an improvement. Circeus 21:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Please see Claricia - then try to edit it. Or is it just me? Thanks Johnbod 03:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi BHG, should we start to put edit requests on the discussion page for these changes we would like to see made. I have put two forward, and BigDunc has just made two on the sandbox you provided? Thanks, -- Domer48 12:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey there! You poindexter bitch. Oooh a bit harsh maybe! I have been making accurate changes to some pages on this website and do not appreciate being interrupted. Catch you on the flipside bitch! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.47.79 ( talk) 01:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't have access to the Internet at many of the places I find myself during an average week, so I will appear and disappear at random. That is why I haven't been engaging. Traditional unionist 17:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I was just looking at this category and the related CfD here. Would I be right in thinking that the vague consensus that came out of it is only to include incidents that have been verifiably described/classed as "war crimes"? One Night In Hackney 303 18:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible that you could arbitrate? Aatomic1 21:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was adding the new category to pages, and I was adding all the links from the Daily Mail page Writers section here (see link for list). And the name of the person was there as well, and it also has a description " former Labour Party deputy leader". So I thought this was adequate (although I was suspicious that it was a Labour guy for a right wing paper). If i was wrong to add the category than i'm sorry. Pafcool2 16:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks alot, it may take a while so I won't start today, but it should be done by the end of the week! Pafcool2 16:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Is Category:Sinn Fein MPs (UK) really supposed to exist? I know you're more informed on the complicated category structure for all the MP categories... One Night In Hackney 303 22:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, BHG - I just checked in on the CFD for Category:Jewish football players and got seriously confused, because there was stuff missing that had been there when I looked at it this morning. I felt disoriented, rather like the time I came out of the library and couldn't find my car, which I had left parked right in front. (It had been stolen). Anyway, I checked the history, and lo and behold, it disappeared in the course of your last edit. It's very bizarre, I really can't figure out how you somehow wiped out two separate sections of text at the same time you were adding your new comment. Spooky. Cgingold 22:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Is this what you call a Freudian slip? — An gr 19:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I've written a comment at CfD explaining the backstory behind my nomination. Basically, I started moving articles from the "personnel" to the "officers" category, attracting the attention of Kernel Saunters, who found the latter superfluous and emptied it. While process was lacking here, I did note that only one or two articles in "personnel" did not fall into the "officers" category (before the latter was emptied), so I think the arguments for deletion are still sound. Best, Choess 17:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that I unprotected the article. There's an attempt to get it to good article status and nobody noticed that it was protected. It's hard to claim a stable article if it's in permanent protection. Feel free to change back if you think it should be kept protected. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
i know i accidentily vandalised Iron Maiden but it wasnt my fault i was writing positive remarks about Bruce Dikinson with my friend, Scott, then my other friend pressed many keys and clicked save. Please forgive me and my friends.
sincerily, Nolimitownass —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Nolimitownass (
talk •
contribs) 11:31, 10 October 2007
What time frame do you recommend I give on this issue [9]. I have refs regarding triumphalist marches and the OO's anti Catholicisim that could be used here. I left this notice on talk page as per your suggestion during the page protection thanks. BigDunc 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I see you have recently created one or more new stub types. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types are proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it is otherwise correctly formatted, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any rationale for this stub type. And please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness... wha? 00:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought from your recent edits, you might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands - come on over and have a look. -- MacRusgail 16:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I really hate to ask for this but it appears the Constantinople page is on the school curriculum somewhere and has been vandalised several times a day for the past month. Would it be possible for you to limit the page to registered users only for a few weeks until it abates? Thanks. Galloglass 16:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I just closed all of your CFD nominations from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 6, and I had a question. After cutting and pasting to WP:CFD/W, I saw some potential problems, which I removed. Can you take a look at this diff and let me know if my edits are ok? There were a few instances of "Foo in County Bar to Foo in County County Bar" and "Foo in Bar to Foo in County County Bar". You'll see what I did in the diff. Thanks. -- Kbdank71 13:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
BHG, my extensive watch list has been utterly overwhelmed by your bots and semi-bots and gargantuan tools. No wonder you have clocked several zillion edits. When will the storm pass over?! ( Sarah777 21:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC))
Oh, and I'd be very interested in your views on this: Talk:Shopping in Dublin ( Sarah777 20:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC))
Hi BHG - just tp let you know I've deleted the misspelt redirect at T:Roscomon-geo-stub. Were you getting some sort of karmic revenge for the ireland-road-stub business, misspelling my ancestral homeland county? :) Grutness... wha? 23:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
BHG, for your humongous work on Irish Categories I hereby award my first ever barnstar; the The Irish Barnstar of National Merit: ( Sarah777 21:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC))
Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! -- SineBot 15:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The XfD Barnstar | ||
Awarded to BHG for all her careful hard work in nominating and commenting at CfD, most recently displayed with a veritable mountain of Irish county categories. Bencherlite Talk 21:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC) |
Thanks for bundling the above. I was planning on doing it myself except:
Thanks again. Cheers, Mattinbgn\ talk 02:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thanks for your help with Category:Alliances, and also for giving me that template information. Your page is interesting...you look like a good administrator. I may contact you again for some help on different things. thanks again. -- Steve, Sm8900 11:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello BrownHairedGirl: Hope all goes well with you and yours. The series of articles on the History of the Jews in Europe is complete. All the European countries have articles, even if they are stubs for now. However there are still two more: History of the Jews in Wales and History of the Jews in Northern Ireland (see related articles History of the Jews in England and History of the Jews in Scotland) that are listed as countries in template {{|Europe topic|History of the Jews in}} that require someone to add information and start the article. If you are able to, your efforts would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK 13:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Please would you semi-protect this controversial page 1 month. - Kittybrewster ☎ 14:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for helping tag those categories! -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear BrownHairedGirl,
I am extremely sorry to bother you, but I need some assistance on conducting a survery among Wikipedia contributors. I am a student of linguistics at Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland. In my MA thesis I would like to discuss some issues connected with Wikipedia. To get a wide perspective on the free encyclopedia, I would like to conduct a short survey among the contributors. Unfortunately, I am not yet fully acquainted with the system of Wikipedia and I don't really know how contact them all. I would be very grateful, if you could give me some advice on how to post the survey (it is a one page Word document with 5 questions) to the contributors. Thanks in advance, Anna —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jibberbogger ( talk • contribs) 15:10, 17 October 2007
Hi BrownHairedGirl: Unfortunately, there is a user Ludvikus ( talk · contribs) who is tampering with the formatting of a nomination page [10]. See the wildness of what he is doing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Protocols of Zion (imprints). He is inserting and changing the original formatting and even the wording, totally unheard of. Please take a look at it. Thanks a lot. IZAK 15:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I cam across Talk:Sir Hugh Arbuthnot, 7th Baronet whose article has been upmerged. There was also a Talk:Sir John Miller, 3rd Baronet. How do we find and identify all the similar upmerged pages? - Kittybrewster ☎ 16:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi BHG: A user is reverting the legitimate template on the Żydokomuna page [11] that is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism that is already underway, under the pretext that it is "mass filing" when this involves only three articles with duplicated content about Jewish Bolshevism. Your admin expertise would be appreciated. Thank you, IZAK 17:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Creativity | ||
For writing one of the funniest song lyrics I've heard or read, and thereby making editing here more enjoyable: In most countries, songs about peace have a definite bias to the inner spiritual tranquility angle, frequently along the lines of "O glorious motherland, land of our birth//To your valleys and hills we bring peace//By killing the (insert chosen enemy) with joy and with mirth//And feeding their corpses to geese". – Black Falcon ( Talk) 18:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC) |
:P
Very nice indeed. Thanks,
Black Falcon (
Talk) 15:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi BHG, Could you semi-protect First Battle of the Marne? About three-quarters of the edits are vandalism or reversing vandalism at the moment. Once again, I suspect the battle is on some school syllabus somewhere hence, the heavy levels of vandalism for a battle that few remember any more. Nunquam Dormio 20:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I've asked for advice about Category:Zimbabwean women writers over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies#Category_advice_wanted. You started the cat, so your suggestions would be particularly appreciated. Many thanks, JackyR | Talk 22:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear BrownHairedGirl,
Dear BHG,
Um Ludvikus: Can't you read your own words? You wrote the word "SHIT" at least twice at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Protocols of Zion (imprints)#Comments & Discussions: "There only are all the many different imprints of the same SHIT which too many people believe" and "I'm only interested in identifying the exact imprints of this antisemitic SHIT" and as far as I know the word shit is an obscenity. Then you used this language when talkng to another user at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism: "Fork? Fork you Mikka (just kidding). You're misrepresenting my position..." [12] (where you also use a vile ethnic slur: "Hey, I've met stupid Poles - but I would never say that being Polish means being Stupid!!!" [13]) and you seem to think it's funny to say "fork you" clearly intending " fuck you" (since you have to add the disclaimer "just kidding") since these are clear obscenities. No doubt there are many more cases like this 'cause I have just had the great pleasure of meeting you now as an editor. And let me tell you, you cannot fool me with either your claim to innocence (when you deny your own open obscenities) nor with your self-righteousness. Thanks, IZAK 13:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Just noticed your editing of the templates set up for FH/LM/SO, I'm wondering is there any way you could make them viewable in full on the page, i.e. that they aren't collapsed and need to be clicked upon to view the contents. This happened before but I'm not sure how to change it. Owenmoresider 00:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'd appreciate your comments here. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I replied to your last message on this talk page. Pathless 12:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi - do you know why was this category debate closed and a solution that had little support imposed? ( Sarah777 18:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC))
BHG, just wondering about your tag on this stub asking for "reliable references". I cannot see a single thing in it that would require a reference; maybe you'd tell me which piece of information needs a reference?! ( Sarah777 21:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC))
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Luvicus: Kindly stop using obscenties/four letter words repeatedly. That is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Civility and the way you are addressing people here comes across as a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Take note. IZAK 16:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately you are not controlling yourself in this regard, see this [14] at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism, it is not acceptable. Please stop. IZAK 17:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Um Ludvikus: Can't you read your own words? You wrote the word "SHIT" at least twice at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Protocols of Zion (imprints)#Comments & Discussions: "There only are all the many different imprints of the same SHIT which too many people believe" and "I'm only interested in identifying the exact imprints of this antisemitic SHIT" and as far as I know the word shit is an obscenity. Then you used this language when talkng to another user at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism: "Fork? Fork you Mikka (just kidding). You're misrepresenting my position..." [15] (where you also use a vile ethnic slur: "Hey, I've met stupid Poles - but I would never say that being Polish means being Stupid!!!" [16]) and you seem to think it's funny to say "fork you" clearly intending " fuck you" (since you have to add the disclaimer "just kidding") since these are clear obscenities. No doubt there are many more cases like this 'cause I have just had the great pleasure of meeting you now as an editor. And let me tell you, you cannot fool me with either your claim to innocence (when you deny your own open obscenities) nor with your self-righteousness. Thanks, IZAK 12:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm moving on as you advised. The above is a Cut & Paste from the Talk page of the Page you've found me disrupting. I strongly disagree with regarding you view that there is nothing wrong, or some cognitive to that effect. I consider the above as not only an attack on may person, but also as inappropriate material that remains posted on that Talk page. Accordingly, I intend to clean it up. If I do so, will you consider it Disruptive and Block me for X amount of time (accordingly to User:Banno, X may mean forever)??? Please advise according, as I do not intend to be disruptive, and I consider my contemplated action to be in keeping with WP regulations.
Yours truly, -- Ludvikus 22:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
"An once of prevention is worth a pound of cure." I believe that User:Mikkalai has been vandalizing my substantial work at the above article.
Yours truly, -- Ludvikus 17:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought from your past edits, you might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands - come on over and have a look, if you haven't done so already. -- MacRusgail 16:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
BHG; Category:Towns in Limerick still survives; I've checked and it is the only one. Can you zap it? ( Sarah777 22:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC))
Was it OK for Mikkalai to delete this comment from the Talk page on the "Chinese at ..." page as he has just done?
“ |
|
” |
Yours truly, -- Ludvikus 19:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you have a look at this editor User talk:170.185.144.19 vandalim on Spanish-American War have asked him twice to stop but dont think he will thanks BigDunc 19:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you take a look at this and also [ this section] of the Waterford City article - I want to confound expectations by NOT getting sucked into an edit war!( Sarah777 22:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC))
Hi BrownHairedGirl. Just so you know, the whole ANI issue may be rearing it's ugly head again. Mikkalai has been deleting non-free images uploaded by Ludvikus (see here). I was trying to help Ludvikus with the copyright issues (scans of book covers as fair use), but the images got deleted pretty quick. I'm not enough of a copyvio person to know if that was a justified deletion, but it seems odd given their history (inherent COI, etc). Anyway, I hope you don't mind that I'm passing the buck to you, but I was hoping there was a way to prevent this from getting out of control again. Best, -- Bfigura ( talk) 04:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! -- SineBot 12:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Fox family of Falmouth: Thanks for your advice about this article. I hope that the new version is some improvement. -- Vernon White . . . Talk 19:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Category:School districts at the top 7% in Pennsylvania on Pennsylvania standardized tests
I'm retired, but(in response to
[17]) I am just dropping by to apologize for
creating the above category for
Garnet Valley School District. I must not understand how cagtegories work, and thought that other users would expand it.--
U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 19:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know that three of the categories nominated at CfD so far today have been the work of Emesee. I've left a comment/suggestion on his talk page about future category creation, but an extra pair of eyes wouldn't go amiss, just in case he starts creating categories about bishops... Regards, Bencherlite Talk 09:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on 1910s in Ireland, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD G2.
Under the
criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please
see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{
hangon}}
on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{
hangon}}
on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.
Jameson L. Tai 13:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree to the merge as you suggested on my page. No probs!!! Eiri Amach 04:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I've replied on 2 of them..
Have you seen the filter button at the bottom of the list maker...?
It should do most of 2 of your requests! Reedy Boy 17:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
There are pages listed twice now in this category , should the cat be removed from {{ GaelicGamesProjectTemplate}} or should the category beremoved for the template:x such as {{ 2006 All Stars}} Gnevin 15:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
(deindent) As Kbdank71 says, no need for them to be there twice. Long-term, it's probably easier to keep them there by the template on the talk page, so I guess it'd be best to remove the categ from the template itself, and check that the talk page template is in place. Do you want me to do that? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You have contributed at the CFD for Category:Lords of France here. The subcats have been deleted, and Category:Lords of France is being held for cleanup until Nov 5. I was wondering if you'd like to help with the cleanup, as I don't have a lot of experience prod'ing articles. Thanks, and sorry for the cut-and-paste. -- Kbdank71 15:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I told User:Irongargoyle to discuss the tags with you before removing any more of them. Uthanc 21:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi BrownHairedGirl. I'm writing this note to raise my concerns about the mass tagging that you have done. In my view this sort of mass tagging overwhelms people working in the area and can discourage people from making the changes we both want to see happen. This sort of thing has happened before. Please see this archived Administrators' noticeboard discussion on what is acceptable article tagging behaviour. If you disagree with that, maybe another such discussion is needed? That case involved 193 notability tags. I believe you've added about 150. Where do you think we should go from here? As I said, I'll be away this weekend, so hopefully we can carry on this discussion on Sunday evening. Carcharoth 23:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Please have a look here for a series of 18 edits where I've added a third-party source for location articles that have an entry in J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia. That is at least a start, I hope, and demonstrates that those subjects are notable enough to get an entry in that Encyclopedia (the other location articles don't have separate entries). Can we agree that this solves the problem for the moment with those articles (though they still have other problems), and concentrate on the other ones you've tagged? Carcharoth 23:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Three apparently random images were deleted from apparently unrelated articles by a Bot on 26th October. AGot any idea why? (Licence was fine). Bot says "Removing deleted image" but the article record shows no prior deletion and the history of the image disappears completely along with the image.
Something sinister going on? ( Sarah777 11:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC))
I think that part of the conflict here is that you are not listening to, or accepting, what people are telling you. You have continued to repeatedly say that these articles not only do not include references establishing their notability (which is true), but also that their subjects do not meet Wikipedia's notability standards (which is not). This despite acknowledging that you have little direct knowledge on the subject and having been told just as often by people who are familiar with the subject that the articles are notable and sources for such exist. This apparent unwillingness to accept what you are being told is likely related to your repeated statements intimating that those disputing you are simply ignorant of Wikipedia's notability standards. Consider that several (e.g. myself, Carcharoth, IronGargoyle) of these 'ignorant' users are themselves admins. Speaking only for myself, I am extremely familiar with WP:NOTE, WP:FICTION, and past precedent on these issues. Iridescent cites the Harry Potter decisions, but those were nothing new. Back in 2005 Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Middle-earth items established standards for articles on Middle-earth topics. That was then re-affirmed for fictional topics in general in this discussion... which was then copied to create a new guideline... known as WP:FICTION. In short, WP:FICTION exists because of past debate about these Middle-earth articles - which concluded that they should be kept. THAT is the consensus which established the guideline you are citing... though you argue the opposite of what the consensus found. Which wasn't a new development then either, Talk:Elros has a similar discussion (with the same results) in 2004 and there were others even older still. This has been accepted and repeatedly re-affirmed practice on Wikipedia since the beginning.
On Christopher Tolkien: You object that he is not independent and thus cannot be cited to establish notability. Actually, nothing in the notability or sourcing standards disqualifies family members, but I think this also overlooks the reality that Christopher Tolkien did not act alone. If CT had put up a website and posted all of his material there or gotten it published by a vanity press then it would indeed be difficult to draw much evidence of notability from that. Instead, top tier publishers in various countries around the world contracted the man... for fifteen books on the subject. Which have since been reprinted, printed in versions with illustrations by noted artists, printed in combined editions, printed as Folio Society collectors items, et cetera. Can you honestly say that is not independent verification of notability? These books have continued being published, and all remained in print, in multiple languages, for more than 30 years... without their contents being notable?
Finally, even if the WP:FICTION guideline had not been created specifically to affirm the notability of these articles, even if the notability inherent in the world's biggest publishers releasing multiple texts on the very minutiae you are challenging were somehow 'invalidated' by the person doing the work having been related to the author, even so these articles would be notable... because, as has been said repeatedly, there are multiple completely independent sources on all of them. Encyclopedias, atlases, compendiums, volumes of annotations, scholarly journals and papers, adoption into popular culture, et cetera ad nauseum. They are notable even in their own right, and not just by the long-standing practice of being part of an extraordinarily notable subject. So, by all means... observe that they, like most of the rest of Wikipedia, are not yet properly referenced. But don't say they aren't notable or that the people who disagree with you on that point need to research the standards. I know the standards. I know the topic. And I'm telling you... they're notable. -- CBD 11:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Please would you change the viscount's coronet to image:Lord_red.svg. It will affect the talk page of every peer with WPBiography. Many thanks. - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Some members of Wikipedia believe that most Roman Catholic Bishops do not merit an article on Wikipedia. Since I am unaware of a position on Wikipedia on this matter I decided to bring this to your attention. The three articles on bishops are up for AfD, they are: : John Joseph Nevins , René Henry Gracida , and Felipe de Jesus Estevez - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm not withdrawing my nomination, but I've replied to your comment on the deletion discussion. SparsityProblem 17:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I see that you have been retagging several articles but notice two things about the way you tag. First, I have not noticed you filling in the image-needed or infobox-needed parameters. Whenever I tag an article I try to add the yes or no parameters, so that it does not need to be revisited until either has been done. Would you possibly do that? You are looking at the article anyway, so deciding if it needs either is an easy task. The second thing is that your summary on my watch-page does not indicate your edits (the ones I noticed such as Talk:Fenit Harbour) are merely a retagging but, to me, imply a completely new tag, which technically they are, where there was none before but when I look at the difference I don't see any significant change except that you are substituting the full preferred tag. Maybe you would rephrase your summaries because then I will know what was done and not bother review your edit which may well be perfectly fine. I often use the word "rate" or "add params" when that is all I actually did to the tag even though I inserted the preferred tag instead of the old one. Hope that makes sense. Cheers and keep up the good work. BTW what do you know about having a bot tag all the untagged Irish stubs? (When you reply, please do so where I started the discussion.) ww2censor 15:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
(de-indent) OMG !!! ww2censor 03:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I fear we're getting a little bit polarised over at the CfD, I thought I'd just note that I really do appreciate your thoughts on the CfD above, but I had rather hoped you'd be prepared to WP:AGF on my viewpoints in the discussion.
Technically, I thought that User:Jw2034's proposal had some merit. FYI, I once spent a solid 6 months going through the mapping, licensing & proprties of those b****y North Sea licence blocks in some detail. I therefore assure you I fully recognise what a politically loaded topic this, and I note you are not alone in making your views clear. (You might also observe that I have not stated an opinion on who should own the oil & its revenues, just on the facts of how it is managed now.) That's also why I thought that, for consistency, any claims to "English" oil should be taken out as well as Scottish. Its pointless, its use is already being misunderstood. If you've looked into the history and operation of the oil industry you'd also appreciate there are many different ways that countries can handle and redistribute mineral explotation & distribution rights, which means that ownership & control might not follow the most 'obvious' route.
Suffice to say I feel there should be a way of handling the simple classification of this, while still maintaining accuracy, and without trying to double-guess how a devolved settlement would affect rights. (Personally, I'd think that anyone seeing a North Sea field in a UK Cat could work out the obvious way...)
So WP:NPA, thanks Ephebi 00:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Glad I could do so, after a heavy week for you! Johnbod 01:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating the Tolkein articles. I've been going through many articles on fiction like it trying to get them cleaned up for example my recent AFDs for the myst games. I had just looked at the various Tolkein articles thinking they needed cleaning up and wondered if anyone would ever have the guts to take them on. I also posted a rant on the talk page of WP:Fiction. I find it kind of funny that if you read through the archives originally it was a guideline to help clean things up, but has since been made so vague that it's now an excuse to keep everything. Is it just me or dose it seem like WP:Fiction is moving in a direction counter to other policies. Ridernyc 18:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Following on from Category:Rappers currently in prison, which you kindly zapped earlier, I've now noticed another familiar name at the new pages (category section): Category:Fictional drug users, a recreation of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 9#Category:Fictional drug users - although I'm prepared to accept it's a good faith recreation (the user's account was only created at the end of May, post-dating your deletion of the category in mid-May). Care to do the honours again, or shall I list it for CfD to see if consensus has changed? Regards, Bencherlite Talk 23:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The above named Arbitration case has closed. The Arbitration Committee decided that [a]ny user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The Committee also decided to uplift Vintagekits' indefinite block at the same time.
The full decision can be viewed here.
For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 08:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
If you have found evidence which meets the requirements set out at Wikipedia:Reward board#Erdos_number, please post it here. (Note that this reward relates to the CfD debate on Erdős number categories. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for finding a parent for my orphan. These beauts come up in uncategorized categories pages - these are just a short alphabetic range. Learn something new every day. :-) Carlossuarez46 17:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you take a peek at Dan_Antonioli. There is a copyright violation tag on it and I was just told the article is being deleted. Can you take a peek, and see what the fuss is about? I can't see the article anymore. There were some strong words exchanged last week in the deletion process, and I suspect this may be a continuation of the process to eliminate the article. The argument is now about how much text in the quote function of the citations constitutes fair use under the DMCA. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
As a / the leading light in categorization of British MPs, what do you think of Category:London Labour Party Member of Parliament? My initial thought (leaving aside the actual wording / use of a singular etc) is that it'd be overcategorization to group MPs by city and party, and I can't immediately find any parallel categories e.g. at Category:Labour MPs (UK) or Category:Conservative MPs (UK) to change my first impression. Regards, Bencherlite Talk 02:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Back at WT:Middle-earth, I've proposed to replace your notability (and secondary sources) tags on Tolkien pages with a single Template:ME-importance or Template:Merge JRRT. Do you agree with the points I set out there? Súrendil 19:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
An update - am starting to work on some of the articles this weekend. I did notice, though, while reviewing my watchlist, that others disagree with your notability assessments. Maybe there needs to be a clear distinction drawn between the generic tags "may not satisfy" and the explicit "I realise it is notable, but please provide sources to document this" requests? The problem with generic tags is that they are very anonymising. There is a world of difference between "I don't know whether this is notable or not, please tell me" and "this is notable, but we need to say so in the article". The former is OK when phrased politely, but when posed in the form of a generic tag, the subtext is "I haven't taken the time to research the topic, but I'm leaving this tag for others to do the work". Anyway, no offense intended, just wanted to jot down a few more general thoughts on the topic before starting the work. Carcharoth 09:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed someone (not me) removed a non cited source tag on the page. I have added an external link, would this suffice or is more information useful? Douglasnicol 21:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll do as you suggested and first post my objection at this page though I don't think it's necessary, it's just polite. There are a couple of things around this template (and not only its categorization scheme) which have shaken my respect to the Wikipedia community a great deal. I'm definitely going to raise my objections somewhere, I just I don't not yet what's the best place to get more attention. I've always believed the major aim of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopaedia for the benefit of readers all around the world and that the community around this project believes in fairness, objectiveness and definitely prefers a seeking consesus in all issues. The {{ Geobox}} template is a highly versatile template which can be used for virtually any type of geography related data, it's major advantages are consistent, easily parseable, user-friendly data format and a uniform data presentation with a lot of automation (unit conversions, automated locator maps etc.) It doesn't "compete" with other templates, it is not used by its creators to "eat-up" other templates as it is the case of other templates, it is just here and users/editors can decide whether they prefer this template or some other. After some users' request, the auto categorization scheme was started as no-one had come up with a better solution. It's absolutely fair to disagree with it, but these objections should be expressed in a polite and fair way which I'm afraid wasn't the case here at all.
User:Darwinek placed a suggestion (a mere suggestion) on my talk page which I answered. He didn't give any clear reason why he objected to the auto catgorization, just I think these categories shouldn't show up and another user wrote I am sure there is something in WP:MOS/WP:CAT. A bit vague, rather just personal point of view. Anyway, the sugestion got answered. Instead of clearly statting the reasons for the suggestion, this user moved to the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Question where he made some false statements, not based on anything that was written before, to which User:Francis Schonken repeatedly added abolutely absurd and false accusations (which I believe gave me a good ground to raise an official complaint). Yet at least he/she made the objections to the issue clear. I repeatdly asked anyone to continue a normal discussion where it rightly belonged: Template_talk:Geobox#Auto_categories. Though we (the people around the Geobox) were repeatedly accused of being unwilling to cooperate it was the other way round, the people who objected just made accusations, issued instructions and didn't bother to come up with any solutions or at least suggestions (besides suggesting to ditch the template completely).
I strongly object to:
I didn't want to make fuss about this treatment but I was possibly wrong as it seems this behavior becoming more and more common on Wikipedia.
And you were right there would be strong oppositing to the way how the discussion was closed. As there was obviously no consensus at all. I consider the situation when one user closes a discussion based on their own interpreatation of a debate as a breach of wiki etiquette (and it would be a breach of a discussion anyplace). It was stated good reasons weren't given. How come? What wiki policy is that which would say if a feature which is found useful by many users while not breaking any of basic rules (no personal attacks, NPOV, no bias etc.), not breaking or damaging the ideas on which Wiki is built is bad just because some users are able to browse thru thousands of often contradictory policies and guidelines (which I don't think are binding but a subject of debate and opposition). You state that technical categories such "Artciles needing this or that since October 2006" are OK in the main namespace for the benefit of a reader. Is it a general concensus or a consensus of a few self-proclaimed regulators? Besides, the appropriate page says: "They should at least be acknowledged or marked as self-references but not necessarily be deleted as they serve their purpose here on Wikipedia." I boldified the last section because it seems to explain perfectly what the situation is, these templates are not officially accepted or rejected but just some users think they are useful and so they have the right to be here. I'm definitely not that well acquainted with the thousands of rules and exceptions to these rules but I daresay I know well what the principle of Wikipedia is and that is a peaceful coorperation whose main target is to create a the largest and and free source of information for anyone to use. Those, who add geoboxes to articles, do not place rubbish to their articles but supply them with a lot of neatly organised data. Each Geobox added means a lot of work done. And the categories are highly useful for them. Furthermore, it is not true there was no reason given why the template was useful for a reader, so let me just repeat: it helps the reader find out articles which contain neatly organized geodata about a place (editors don't just add geoboxes with one or two chaotic lines, they fill them with a lot of useful data). Wikipedia is not here for editors but for readers first.
There were couple of views expressed in the debate, some wanted to keep the categories completely, some suggested renaming them so that they didn't contain the word geobox (which I accept was not a good idea at all and should be changed and asked about possible alternative names but as usual got no answers). I suggested I'll make changes to the template that would satisfy both sides but that I need to work out the best solution. No help was given. (Except USer:SEWilco who was the only one who really tried to help and suggested various solutions, thank you very much indeed.) But simply some users' voices mean nothing. I do not think this is the right course for Wikipedia, that so many discussions are flooded by users putting in tens of Wikipedia guidelines and policies rather than discussiing the merit of the thing: does this help improve Wikipedia or not? Adding those categories was not my idea, I did that following a request from other users as it seemed the most elegant solution. I do not personally care much about them but I'm strongly concerned about the free spirit of Wikipedia being damaged by users imposing rules for rules, creating world of their own bound by them, not respecting other views, refusals to discuss things, imposing orders but no viable solutions … – Caroig ( talk) 22:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear BrownHairedGirl,
I'm not too sure if you will receive this message but I was at school with a guy called Stephen who, I think had the title of Viscount Clandfield. I'm not completely sure of the spelling of "Clandfield" but he would've been at Stowe School in Stowe, Buckingham from around 1975 until 1980.
All I can remember of him was that he was quite an introvert, although he had a very sharp wit which often got him into trouble with both tutors and pupils. He had a particular interest in natural history.
The last I heard of him was that he'd relocated to Johannesburg in around 1988/89... I've not heard anything since then.
Hope this may be of some help to you.
Kind regards, David Goldstein ( d.goldstein@hotmail.co.uk ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misty1234 ( talk • contribs) 01:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm on the case. Thanks Jed keenan 12:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you deleted this article as spam. I looked at it very closely as part of a detailed review of spammy articles I did recently at Talk:List of network management systems. While a TTI Telecom-related editor did a lot of spammy stuff, I think the company is notable. As I recall, it's listed on the Israeli stock exchange; that alone is usually taken as a sign of notability. A quick search of Google's News Archives turns up 567; probably 80 to 90% are press releases, but that still leaves several dozen articles from Forbes, the Jerusalem Post, etc. I may have tagged it for notability (I don't remember) but if so, it was because:
I suggest if you still want to delete this that you restore the article and list it at AfD.
As for Category:TTI Telecom, all those individual products of TTI's are not notable and I proposed them for deletion several days ago. They'll likely be gone in a day or two leaving an empty category (or else a category of one if you restore TTI Telecom. I suggest that if you see these links go red, you just speedy the category:
-- A. B. (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering if this whole fight about notability fiction is going in the wrong direction, Kind of like trying to put out a forest fire by stomping on burning leaves. I'm wondering if we should make a proposal somewhere that some of these fictional wikiprojects be moved off of wikipeida. Ridernyc 16:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Your talk page in now in the "Unknown importance Tolkein article" catagory. Ridernyc 16:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I was going to offer $10 a couple of days ago, if there were no more Erdos posts, but thought it somewhat against the spirit of WP. Now I'm rather regretting it! Johnbod 17:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
If they didn't want the work they shouldn't have taken the job. No sympathy! Pile 'em on! Bury the barsteds! Otto4711 19:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
this was really funny: [19]. Carlossuarez46 21:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to ask if it's not allowed to create your own user category. This is for me very helpfull because I develope different article over a longer period and sometimes lose them. In the Dutch Wikipedia I have a similar category. Is there a policy here? - Mdd 22:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Phibsborough and Phibsboro are pretty similar, the result of a failed experiment. Could you help sort it out? ( Sarah777 23:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC))
Hi, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_27#Category:Books_in_discourse_analysis you voted "Rename per nom" here; the nom was (presumably) to delete, but i'd suggested a rename.
I thought I'd let Erdos run for the record in the end - it must be a contender. What will be next weeks hornet's nest? Cheers Johnbod 14:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
There are only c410, not over 600 US country stations, so I changed both our refs to the number, which I hope is ok. Johnbod 15:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi BrownHairedGirl, could you confirm what connection these ladies have to Ireland as they seem to have been born in Durham and lived all their life in England? Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be useful if you said on the talk page why you have labelled the article on Jonathan Sayeed (npov, cleanup needed; please discus on talk page).-- Toddy1 20:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
See reply on my talk page. Cheers Galloglass 21:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
LiberalViews ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was already warned about his conduct by ArbCom member Mackensen for this edit, and seems to be on a trolling mission right now. Firstly there's the removal of reliably sourced content claiming "propaganda", adding POV/weaselry (source says nothing of the sort). Then related to that there's claiming sources were used falsely, further similar accusations and trolling, trolling including inflammatory edit summary, more trolling, soapboxing, personal attacks and trolling, and repeated trolling on the WikiProject talk page. Just in case you aren't aware, IED refers to improvised explosive device. Advice welcome. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 14:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl | ||
BrownHairedGirl's archives | ||
---|---|---|
|
Does this list of contributions + edit summaries remind you of anyone? -- roundhouse0 17:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I did a bit more browsing of the contribs list of OfficePuter ( talk · contribs), and this looks very much like Pastorwayne: same sort of articles edited, same sty;e of writing, same style of edit summaries, same style of prolific creation of categories, etc. Given the rate at which the creation of dubious categories was proceeded, I have blocked OfficePuter as a suspected sockpuppet, without waiting for the results of the checkuser request. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
BTW, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pastorwayne confirmed User:OfficePuter as a likely sockpuppet of PW. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
If he was unblocked at this point, would you still seek a community ban? (See: User talk:Pastorwayne#Re-Indefinitely blocked) I hope this finds you well. Vassyana 15:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
70.106.130.112 categories, UM, Ohio, burials. -- roundhouse0 15:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I am thinking of retreating somewhat from Wikipedia as it seems difficult to avoid getting bogged down in matters such as this (or in your case 'The troubles' - goodness). The PW stuff is best seen via test6. I would have thought it might be worth listing all the suspect PW-clones and ips (I have 11, 2 of which are perhaps historical) at checkuser and asking for links between any of them (and asking which are Ohio-based). The various check links on test6 such as Check 6 are to recent changes to various pages which ought to pick up suspected SPs (none recently). -- roundhouse0 09:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Typo: "but the existence of non-trivial coverage". [1] Tyrenius 17:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I see you used an indefinite block here, would it be possible to shorten it for, say, 6 months to 1 year? I don't like the idea of having indef blocked IPs hanging around, since people move and they eventually get rotated :) -- lucasbfr talk 17:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually I have provided an expanded explanation now. So if you could please place it back that would be great. Thanks. -- Behnam 21:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. About a month ago we had a discussion on a move from Afghanistani singers ---> Afghan singers and Afghanistani musicians ---> Afghan musicians. Please see herefor Afghanistan singers and here for Afghanistani musicians. As you can so the consensus was to opppose and keep the categories as Afghanistani singers and Afghanistan musicians. Yet the admin mistakenly moved it to "Afghan musicisn/singers". Can you please correct this? Thanks. -- Behnam 21:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism account User:212.85.1.38. Baronetcy edits reverted by Counter-Rev; Other reversions need to be done. - Kittybrewster (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Did you ever or do you still attend Coram Deo Academy? -- In His service Hodie Dodie 17:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I seen your discussion on Kittybrewers talkpage, in connection with that I e-mailed Sinn Féin in feb 2006 in regards to use images or content from their Website for use on another wiki, and posted the reply here in which they state that any content of their site is public domain and can be reproduced.-- Padraig 08:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Note that the Scottish Government has an images section which states that they can be used "use by the media or other organisations as illustrations to accompany information on the process and function of government. Crown Copyright applies. Any pictures downloaded from this section should be used appropriately and within context" [2] Astrotrain 19:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
You may want to check out the contributions [3] of User:CELTICROVER. He's becoming a bit of a nuisance on (mostly Irish) articles adding in fictional stuff about himself. Scolaire 14:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Has been resurrected yet again at List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy. My feeling is that the reorganisation isn't enough to save it from a G4, but it's different enough that I don't really want to delete it without a second opinion. Any thoughts? — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification - its appreciated. Traditional unionist 09:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
please block User:User44130. - Kittybrewster (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, BrowhHairedGirl. A week or so ago I posted a cfr proposing that Category:Homophobia be renamed to Category:Anti-LGBT activism, which you closed pretty quickly. I've noticed that my cfr displays as a cfd on the category's talk page. I was wondering why it was closed so quickly and what caused it to be displayed as a cfd. Thanks. Citadel18080 13:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Category:Scottish Conservative and Unionist MP stubs
The proposal with these was to include both predecessor parties (though granted I didn't originally make that explicit on the category page). If anything, I'd have thought that the Unionists would be the questionable inclusion, if either was problematic: why wouldn't one want to include the ur-Tories? Or do we just have a miscommunication here? On a related note, the Category:Conservative MP (UK) stubs are oversized again, if you have any further thoughts on what's the best (or least worst) axis on which to re-split... Alai 19:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you have been ott here. Going from a welcome message to an indefinite block in 3 hours? It looks like newbie biting to me. Remember that new users don't necessarily understand how wikipedia works. Catchpole 10:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Greetings: I'm posting this note for each of the five editors who left a comment on the CFD for Category:Muslim Holocaust deniers prior to my own comments on the subject. I'm seriously puzzled by the complete lack of response to my comments, as I was anticipating a very thoughtful exchange of views. But after 3 entire days, not a single reply. I honestly don't know what to make of it.
In any event, please consider this a personal request for your response to my remarks. As I said, I'm looking forward to a thoughtful discussion. Regards, Cgingold 11:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello again, BHG - If you can spare another couple of minutes of your precious time, would you be good enough to take a look at my response to Izak at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 24#Category:Jewish_Orthodox_anti-Zionists. Regardless of where you come out on this (or anything else), I consider you a very conscientious editor. (I guess I should stop there so you don't feel like I'm trying to influence you!) Anyway, I look forward to seeing your remarks, whatever they may be. Regards, Cgingold 13:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
PS - I also came up with another suggestion re Category:Circumnavigators blah blah blah. What do you think of Category:Pedestrian circumnavigators? (sorry, I've forgotten what date that CFD was, but I know it's still open) -- Just went back & looked: it's the 25th
You, Alison, Giano and me are all agreeing on something - is this a first? All we need now is Kittybrewster & I think that's the set... — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
This fellow is of some significance here in British Columbia. The article suggests that after retirement, he became an MP. I assume that means your parliament. Could you point me to any kind of index that would verify this claim? I can't find anything to confirm this. -- KenWalker | Talk 03:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
No worries, I missed the reference I'm afraid, & was too snappy anyway - rather a bad hair day. I should be the one apologising, and I do. It's good to see you back on the block btw. There was a wierd period 2 weeks or so ago when no-one seemed to be commenting on debates. Johnbod 13:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
[4]. I'm afraid I'm bothering you with this as you're the only admin I can see about! The edits being made cannot be allowed to remain, even if what it is removing is unreferenced. In placed the removing is highly, highly selective. Traditional unionist 14:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Purely because I don't want you accused of bias there there is none - you haven't actually warned me yet! Traditional unionist 14:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for your note, BHG. As Johnbod just said, glad you decided to come back. I think my, er, "baptism" at CFD would have been much more bearable -- hell, even enjoyable -- if you had been around. Don't ya know, I jumped in big-time not long after you departed for the summer. (Just my luck.)
So anyway, I mainly came by to mention that we now officially have (drumroll, please) Category:Pedestrian circumnavigators of the globe. And more importantly, to tell you that when I read your remark about "emergency vehicles for British Conservatives" I burst out laughing so hard that I damn near woke my wife up in the other room -- and then I would have had to explain how I'm carrying on with this brown-haired Irish lass with a wicked sense of humor... LOL - Believe it or not, I've gone back to that discussion several times to see how it closed, and each time I saw your comment I burst out laughing all over again. (Really!) Cgingold 15:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Seems to be in Limbo once again, and the natives are seemingly getting restless (see Orange Institution for the latest kerfluffle, as you know :)). Obviously, we need to get folks used to the fact that it looks likely that the law of the land going forward is going to be 1 Revert per WEEK (not counting reverts of anonymous IP addresses).
As a suggestion, do you think that all of the admins involved could impose a "psuedo-probation" on these users until ArbCom's end? SirFozzie 15:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I have taken to monitoring and editing this article as it has been repeatedly vandalised and despite my requests for it to be protected from further editing this has not happened. The statement that her majority was reduced in 2005 is true however adds nothing to the article and the statement that she "made clear she no longer relished her role" is untrue and therefore I am sure that it could not be substantiated.
Other malicious edits that have taken place have accused her of endorsing drug taking to 18 year olds and misrepresenting her position in the removal of Charles Kennedy using emotive language to cast this MP in a very poor light.
Whilst I no this does not really matter I would like to point out that she is my MP and has been a great help to me when I have written to her so I feel that protecting her from malicious online attavcks is the least I can do.
If I have inadvertantly caused an incomplete sentance or some other mistake I do appolgise.
yours
Nathan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.198.223 ( talk) 86.143.198.223
Thankyou for you carefully considered comments, I accept all of your points with only one caveat.
Her role in the deposition of Charles Kennedy has been used as a negative regarding her career by her political opponants who I believe originally posted it as part of her biography. Whilst there is nothing factually innacurate about the current inclusion that I see you have references. Your own reference lists 11 initial MP's only one other of whom have this as an entry in their wikipedia biography. Indeed Ed Davey who wrote the letter than Sandra Gidley Later Signed, has no mention on his wikipedia entry about the episode at all. For this reason I would venture that it's inclusion can be seen as negative rather than neutral.
otherwise I am happy that someone else has been paying such close attnetion as previous posts as I mentioned were quite clearly negative an in several cases completely untrue.
yours
Nathan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.198.223 ( talk) 23:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that, [7]. Regards -- Domer48 08:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you comment on this content dispute please? [8] Thanks, Valenciano 13:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, BHG: I very nearly passed on it, but then I wound up posting a novel and I think important proposal on Category:Jewish football players which I hope you'll be able to find time to give some serious thought to. Cgingold 15:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi BHG, The Olmec are obviously on the curriculum of US schools and the article is getting a lot of puerile IP address and school vandalism at the moment. Could you semi-protect the page so that only registered users can edit it. Semi-protection has worked well on Alcoholism to reduce inane edits. Nunquam Dormio 06:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
So I was playing a little with WatchFlickr the other day, looking for pictures in Category:Pennsylvania railroads and noticed that it was trying to dredge out pictures for some articles that really didn't seem apropos. Upon further inspection, the cause seems to be that WatchFlickr iterates through subcategories, and the categories for major railroads passing through Pennsylvania (e.g., Category:Amtrak, Category:CSX) are all subcategories of Pennsylvania railroads. Now, neither of those two railroads operates exclusively in Pennsylvania, so it seems to me that while the Amtrak and CSX articles belong in the Pennsylvania railroads category, their categories do not. I am tempted to break open a can of WP:BOLD and go in and change them, but I know I've seen similar patterns of categorization elsewhere on Wikipedia (it's why WP:MILHIST's bot-tabulation of article ratings gathers in half the encyclopedia). Since I know you are wise in the ways of CfD, I thought I would ask you if you know of any discussion about this sort of semantics, and whether this (IMO overbroad) categorization has advocates before I start laying into the rail categories. Choess 14:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe WP:POINT wasn't the ideal place to point at, but I still think you would have made your point far more efficiently without such heavy sarcasm. Heck, just not using the ridiculous name as if it was the proposal (but still mentioning it) would have been an improvement. Circeus 21:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Please see Claricia - then try to edit it. Or is it just me? Thanks Johnbod 03:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi BHG, should we start to put edit requests on the discussion page for these changes we would like to see made. I have put two forward, and BigDunc has just made two on the sandbox you provided? Thanks, -- Domer48 12:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey there! You poindexter bitch. Oooh a bit harsh maybe! I have been making accurate changes to some pages on this website and do not appreciate being interrupted. Catch you on the flipside bitch! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.47.79 ( talk) 01:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't have access to the Internet at many of the places I find myself during an average week, so I will appear and disappear at random. That is why I haven't been engaging. Traditional unionist 17:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I was just looking at this category and the related CfD here. Would I be right in thinking that the vague consensus that came out of it is only to include incidents that have been verifiably described/classed as "war crimes"? One Night In Hackney 303 18:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible that you could arbitrate? Aatomic1 21:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was adding the new category to pages, and I was adding all the links from the Daily Mail page Writers section here (see link for list). And the name of the person was there as well, and it also has a description " former Labour Party deputy leader". So I thought this was adequate (although I was suspicious that it was a Labour guy for a right wing paper). If i was wrong to add the category than i'm sorry. Pafcool2 16:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks alot, it may take a while so I won't start today, but it should be done by the end of the week! Pafcool2 16:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Is Category:Sinn Fein MPs (UK) really supposed to exist? I know you're more informed on the complicated category structure for all the MP categories... One Night In Hackney 303 22:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, BHG - I just checked in on the CFD for Category:Jewish football players and got seriously confused, because there was stuff missing that had been there when I looked at it this morning. I felt disoriented, rather like the time I came out of the library and couldn't find my car, which I had left parked right in front. (It had been stolen). Anyway, I checked the history, and lo and behold, it disappeared in the course of your last edit. It's very bizarre, I really can't figure out how you somehow wiped out two separate sections of text at the same time you were adding your new comment. Spooky. Cgingold 22:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Is this what you call a Freudian slip? — An gr 19:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I've written a comment at CfD explaining the backstory behind my nomination. Basically, I started moving articles from the "personnel" to the "officers" category, attracting the attention of Kernel Saunters, who found the latter superfluous and emptied it. While process was lacking here, I did note that only one or two articles in "personnel" did not fall into the "officers" category (before the latter was emptied), so I think the arguments for deletion are still sound. Best, Choess 17:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that I unprotected the article. There's an attempt to get it to good article status and nobody noticed that it was protected. It's hard to claim a stable article if it's in permanent protection. Feel free to change back if you think it should be kept protected. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
i know i accidentily vandalised Iron Maiden but it wasnt my fault i was writing positive remarks about Bruce Dikinson with my friend, Scott, then my other friend pressed many keys and clicked save. Please forgive me and my friends.
sincerily, Nolimitownass —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Nolimitownass (
talk •
contribs) 11:31, 10 October 2007
What time frame do you recommend I give on this issue [9]. I have refs regarding triumphalist marches and the OO's anti Catholicisim that could be used here. I left this notice on talk page as per your suggestion during the page protection thanks. BigDunc 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I see you have recently created one or more new stub types. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types are proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it is otherwise correctly formatted, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any rationale for this stub type. And please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness... wha? 00:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought from your recent edits, you might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands - come on over and have a look. -- MacRusgail 16:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I really hate to ask for this but it appears the Constantinople page is on the school curriculum somewhere and has been vandalised several times a day for the past month. Would it be possible for you to limit the page to registered users only for a few weeks until it abates? Thanks. Galloglass 16:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I just closed all of your CFD nominations from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 6, and I had a question. After cutting and pasting to WP:CFD/W, I saw some potential problems, which I removed. Can you take a look at this diff and let me know if my edits are ok? There were a few instances of "Foo in County Bar to Foo in County County Bar" and "Foo in Bar to Foo in County County Bar". You'll see what I did in the diff. Thanks. -- Kbdank71 13:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
BHG, my extensive watch list has been utterly overwhelmed by your bots and semi-bots and gargantuan tools. No wonder you have clocked several zillion edits. When will the storm pass over?! ( Sarah777 21:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC))
Oh, and I'd be very interested in your views on this: Talk:Shopping in Dublin ( Sarah777 20:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC))
Hi BHG - just tp let you know I've deleted the misspelt redirect at T:Roscomon-geo-stub. Were you getting some sort of karmic revenge for the ireland-road-stub business, misspelling my ancestral homeland county? :) Grutness... wha? 23:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
BHG, for your humongous work on Irish Categories I hereby award my first ever barnstar; the The Irish Barnstar of National Merit: ( Sarah777 21:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC))
Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! -- SineBot 15:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The XfD Barnstar | ||
Awarded to BHG for all her careful hard work in nominating and commenting at CfD, most recently displayed with a veritable mountain of Irish county categories. Bencherlite Talk 21:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC) |
Thanks for bundling the above. I was planning on doing it myself except:
Thanks again. Cheers, Mattinbgn\ talk 02:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thanks for your help with Category:Alliances, and also for giving me that template information. Your page is interesting...you look like a good administrator. I may contact you again for some help on different things. thanks again. -- Steve, Sm8900 11:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello BrownHairedGirl: Hope all goes well with you and yours. The series of articles on the History of the Jews in Europe is complete. All the European countries have articles, even if they are stubs for now. However there are still two more: History of the Jews in Wales and History of the Jews in Northern Ireland (see related articles History of the Jews in England and History of the Jews in Scotland) that are listed as countries in template {{|Europe topic|History of the Jews in}} that require someone to add information and start the article. If you are able to, your efforts would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK 13:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Please would you semi-protect this controversial page 1 month. - Kittybrewster ☎ 14:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for helping tag those categories! -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear BrownHairedGirl,
I am extremely sorry to bother you, but I need some assistance on conducting a survery among Wikipedia contributors. I am a student of linguistics at Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland. In my MA thesis I would like to discuss some issues connected with Wikipedia. To get a wide perspective on the free encyclopedia, I would like to conduct a short survey among the contributors. Unfortunately, I am not yet fully acquainted with the system of Wikipedia and I don't really know how contact them all. I would be very grateful, if you could give me some advice on how to post the survey (it is a one page Word document with 5 questions) to the contributors. Thanks in advance, Anna —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jibberbogger ( talk • contribs) 15:10, 17 October 2007
Hi BrownHairedGirl: Unfortunately, there is a user Ludvikus ( talk · contribs) who is tampering with the formatting of a nomination page [10]. See the wildness of what he is doing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Protocols of Zion (imprints). He is inserting and changing the original formatting and even the wording, totally unheard of. Please take a look at it. Thanks a lot. IZAK 15:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I cam across Talk:Sir Hugh Arbuthnot, 7th Baronet whose article has been upmerged. There was also a Talk:Sir John Miller, 3rd Baronet. How do we find and identify all the similar upmerged pages? - Kittybrewster ☎ 16:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi BHG: A user is reverting the legitimate template on the Żydokomuna page [11] that is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism that is already underway, under the pretext that it is "mass filing" when this involves only three articles with duplicated content about Jewish Bolshevism. Your admin expertise would be appreciated. Thank you, IZAK 17:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Creativity | ||
For writing one of the funniest song lyrics I've heard or read, and thereby making editing here more enjoyable: In most countries, songs about peace have a definite bias to the inner spiritual tranquility angle, frequently along the lines of "O glorious motherland, land of our birth//To your valleys and hills we bring peace//By killing the (insert chosen enemy) with joy and with mirth//And feeding their corpses to geese". – Black Falcon ( Talk) 18:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC) |
:P
Very nice indeed. Thanks,
Black Falcon (
Talk) 15:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi BHG, Could you semi-protect First Battle of the Marne? About three-quarters of the edits are vandalism or reversing vandalism at the moment. Once again, I suspect the battle is on some school syllabus somewhere hence, the heavy levels of vandalism for a battle that few remember any more. Nunquam Dormio 20:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I've asked for advice about Category:Zimbabwean women writers over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies#Category_advice_wanted. You started the cat, so your suggestions would be particularly appreciated. Many thanks, JackyR | Talk 22:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear BrownHairedGirl,
Dear BHG,
Um Ludvikus: Can't you read your own words? You wrote the word "SHIT" at least twice at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Protocols of Zion (imprints)#Comments & Discussions: "There only are all the many different imprints of the same SHIT which too many people believe" and "I'm only interested in identifying the exact imprints of this antisemitic SHIT" and as far as I know the word shit is an obscenity. Then you used this language when talkng to another user at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism: "Fork? Fork you Mikka (just kidding). You're misrepresenting my position..." [12] (where you also use a vile ethnic slur: "Hey, I've met stupid Poles - but I would never say that being Polish means being Stupid!!!" [13]) and you seem to think it's funny to say "fork you" clearly intending " fuck you" (since you have to add the disclaimer "just kidding") since these are clear obscenities. No doubt there are many more cases like this 'cause I have just had the great pleasure of meeting you now as an editor. And let me tell you, you cannot fool me with either your claim to innocence (when you deny your own open obscenities) nor with your self-righteousness. Thanks, IZAK 13:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Just noticed your editing of the templates set up for FH/LM/SO, I'm wondering is there any way you could make them viewable in full on the page, i.e. that they aren't collapsed and need to be clicked upon to view the contents. This happened before but I'm not sure how to change it. Owenmoresider 00:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'd appreciate your comments here. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I replied to your last message on this talk page. Pathless 12:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi - do you know why was this category debate closed and a solution that had little support imposed? ( Sarah777 18:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC))
BHG, just wondering about your tag on this stub asking for "reliable references". I cannot see a single thing in it that would require a reference; maybe you'd tell me which piece of information needs a reference?! ( Sarah777 21:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC))
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Luvicus: Kindly stop using obscenties/four letter words repeatedly. That is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Civility and the way you are addressing people here comes across as a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Take note. IZAK 16:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately you are not controlling yourself in this regard, see this [14] at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism, it is not acceptable. Please stop. IZAK 17:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Um Ludvikus: Can't you read your own words? You wrote the word "SHIT" at least twice at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Protocols of Zion (imprints)#Comments & Discussions: "There only are all the many different imprints of the same SHIT which too many people believe" and "I'm only interested in identifying the exact imprints of this antisemitic SHIT" and as far as I know the word shit is an obscenity. Then you used this language when talkng to another user at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism: "Fork? Fork you Mikka (just kidding). You're misrepresenting my position..." [15] (where you also use a vile ethnic slur: "Hey, I've met stupid Poles - but I would never say that being Polish means being Stupid!!!" [16]) and you seem to think it's funny to say "fork you" clearly intending " fuck you" (since you have to add the disclaimer "just kidding") since these are clear obscenities. No doubt there are many more cases like this 'cause I have just had the great pleasure of meeting you now as an editor. And let me tell you, you cannot fool me with either your claim to innocence (when you deny your own open obscenities) nor with your self-righteousness. Thanks, IZAK 12:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm moving on as you advised. The above is a Cut & Paste from the Talk page of the Page you've found me disrupting. I strongly disagree with regarding you view that there is nothing wrong, or some cognitive to that effect. I consider the above as not only an attack on may person, but also as inappropriate material that remains posted on that Talk page. Accordingly, I intend to clean it up. If I do so, will you consider it Disruptive and Block me for X amount of time (accordingly to User:Banno, X may mean forever)??? Please advise according, as I do not intend to be disruptive, and I consider my contemplated action to be in keeping with WP regulations.
Yours truly, -- Ludvikus 22:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
"An once of prevention is worth a pound of cure." I believe that User:Mikkalai has been vandalizing my substantial work at the above article.
Yours truly, -- Ludvikus 17:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought from your past edits, you might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands - come on over and have a look, if you haven't done so already. -- MacRusgail 16:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
BHG; Category:Towns in Limerick still survives; I've checked and it is the only one. Can you zap it? ( Sarah777 22:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC))
Was it OK for Mikkalai to delete this comment from the Talk page on the "Chinese at ..." page as he has just done?
“ |
|
” |
Yours truly, -- Ludvikus 19:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you have a look at this editor User talk:170.185.144.19 vandalim on Spanish-American War have asked him twice to stop but dont think he will thanks BigDunc 19:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you take a look at this and also [ this section] of the Waterford City article - I want to confound expectations by NOT getting sucked into an edit war!( Sarah777 22:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC))
Hi BrownHairedGirl. Just so you know, the whole ANI issue may be rearing it's ugly head again. Mikkalai has been deleting non-free images uploaded by Ludvikus (see here). I was trying to help Ludvikus with the copyright issues (scans of book covers as fair use), but the images got deleted pretty quick. I'm not enough of a copyvio person to know if that was a justified deletion, but it seems odd given their history (inherent COI, etc). Anyway, I hope you don't mind that I'm passing the buck to you, but I was hoping there was a way to prevent this from getting out of control again. Best, -- Bfigura ( talk) 04:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! -- SineBot 12:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Fox family of Falmouth: Thanks for your advice about this article. I hope that the new version is some improvement. -- Vernon White . . . Talk 19:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Category:School districts at the top 7% in Pennsylvania on Pennsylvania standardized tests
I'm retired, but(in response to
[17]) I am just dropping by to apologize for
creating the above category for
Garnet Valley School District. I must not understand how cagtegories work, and thought that other users would expand it.--
U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 19:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know that three of the categories nominated at CfD so far today have been the work of Emesee. I've left a comment/suggestion on his talk page about future category creation, but an extra pair of eyes wouldn't go amiss, just in case he starts creating categories about bishops... Regards, Bencherlite Talk 09:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on 1910s in Ireland, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD G2.
Under the
criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please
see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{
hangon}}
on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{
hangon}}
on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.
Jameson L. Tai 13:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree to the merge as you suggested on my page. No probs!!! Eiri Amach 04:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I've replied on 2 of them..
Have you seen the filter button at the bottom of the list maker...?
It should do most of 2 of your requests! Reedy Boy 17:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
There are pages listed twice now in this category , should the cat be removed from {{ GaelicGamesProjectTemplate}} or should the category beremoved for the template:x such as {{ 2006 All Stars}} Gnevin 15:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
(deindent) As Kbdank71 says, no need for them to be there twice. Long-term, it's probably easier to keep them there by the template on the talk page, so I guess it'd be best to remove the categ from the template itself, and check that the talk page template is in place. Do you want me to do that? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You have contributed at the CFD for Category:Lords of France here. The subcats have been deleted, and Category:Lords of France is being held for cleanup until Nov 5. I was wondering if you'd like to help with the cleanup, as I don't have a lot of experience prod'ing articles. Thanks, and sorry for the cut-and-paste. -- Kbdank71 15:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I told User:Irongargoyle to discuss the tags with you before removing any more of them. Uthanc 21:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi BrownHairedGirl. I'm writing this note to raise my concerns about the mass tagging that you have done. In my view this sort of mass tagging overwhelms people working in the area and can discourage people from making the changes we both want to see happen. This sort of thing has happened before. Please see this archived Administrators' noticeboard discussion on what is acceptable article tagging behaviour. If you disagree with that, maybe another such discussion is needed? That case involved 193 notability tags. I believe you've added about 150. Where do you think we should go from here? As I said, I'll be away this weekend, so hopefully we can carry on this discussion on Sunday evening. Carcharoth 23:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Please have a look here for a series of 18 edits where I've added a third-party source for location articles that have an entry in J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia. That is at least a start, I hope, and demonstrates that those subjects are notable enough to get an entry in that Encyclopedia (the other location articles don't have separate entries). Can we agree that this solves the problem for the moment with those articles (though they still have other problems), and concentrate on the other ones you've tagged? Carcharoth 23:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Three apparently random images were deleted from apparently unrelated articles by a Bot on 26th October. AGot any idea why? (Licence was fine). Bot says "Removing deleted image" but the article record shows no prior deletion and the history of the image disappears completely along with the image.
Something sinister going on? ( Sarah777 11:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC))
I think that part of the conflict here is that you are not listening to, or accepting, what people are telling you. You have continued to repeatedly say that these articles not only do not include references establishing their notability (which is true), but also that their subjects do not meet Wikipedia's notability standards (which is not). This despite acknowledging that you have little direct knowledge on the subject and having been told just as often by people who are familiar with the subject that the articles are notable and sources for such exist. This apparent unwillingness to accept what you are being told is likely related to your repeated statements intimating that those disputing you are simply ignorant of Wikipedia's notability standards. Consider that several (e.g. myself, Carcharoth, IronGargoyle) of these 'ignorant' users are themselves admins. Speaking only for myself, I am extremely familiar with WP:NOTE, WP:FICTION, and past precedent on these issues. Iridescent cites the Harry Potter decisions, but those were nothing new. Back in 2005 Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Middle-earth items established standards for articles on Middle-earth topics. That was then re-affirmed for fictional topics in general in this discussion... which was then copied to create a new guideline... known as WP:FICTION. In short, WP:FICTION exists because of past debate about these Middle-earth articles - which concluded that they should be kept. THAT is the consensus which established the guideline you are citing... though you argue the opposite of what the consensus found. Which wasn't a new development then either, Talk:Elros has a similar discussion (with the same results) in 2004 and there were others even older still. This has been accepted and repeatedly re-affirmed practice on Wikipedia since the beginning.
On Christopher Tolkien: You object that he is not independent and thus cannot be cited to establish notability. Actually, nothing in the notability or sourcing standards disqualifies family members, but I think this also overlooks the reality that Christopher Tolkien did not act alone. If CT had put up a website and posted all of his material there or gotten it published by a vanity press then it would indeed be difficult to draw much evidence of notability from that. Instead, top tier publishers in various countries around the world contracted the man... for fifteen books on the subject. Which have since been reprinted, printed in versions with illustrations by noted artists, printed in combined editions, printed as Folio Society collectors items, et cetera. Can you honestly say that is not independent verification of notability? These books have continued being published, and all remained in print, in multiple languages, for more than 30 years... without their contents being notable?
Finally, even if the WP:FICTION guideline had not been created specifically to affirm the notability of these articles, even if the notability inherent in the world's biggest publishers releasing multiple texts on the very minutiae you are challenging were somehow 'invalidated' by the person doing the work having been related to the author, even so these articles would be notable... because, as has been said repeatedly, there are multiple completely independent sources on all of them. Encyclopedias, atlases, compendiums, volumes of annotations, scholarly journals and papers, adoption into popular culture, et cetera ad nauseum. They are notable even in their own right, and not just by the long-standing practice of being part of an extraordinarily notable subject. So, by all means... observe that they, like most of the rest of Wikipedia, are not yet properly referenced. But don't say they aren't notable or that the people who disagree with you on that point need to research the standards. I know the standards. I know the topic. And I'm telling you... they're notable. -- CBD 11:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Please would you change the viscount's coronet to image:Lord_red.svg. It will affect the talk page of every peer with WPBiography. Many thanks. - Kittybrewster ☎ 09:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Some members of Wikipedia believe that most Roman Catholic Bishops do not merit an article on Wikipedia. Since I am unaware of a position on Wikipedia on this matter I decided to bring this to your attention. The three articles on bishops are up for AfD, they are: : John Joseph Nevins , René Henry Gracida , and Felipe de Jesus Estevez - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm not withdrawing my nomination, but I've replied to your comment on the deletion discussion. SparsityProblem 17:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I see that you have been retagging several articles but notice two things about the way you tag. First, I have not noticed you filling in the image-needed or infobox-needed parameters. Whenever I tag an article I try to add the yes or no parameters, so that it does not need to be revisited until either has been done. Would you possibly do that? You are looking at the article anyway, so deciding if it needs either is an easy task. The second thing is that your summary on my watch-page does not indicate your edits (the ones I noticed such as Talk:Fenit Harbour) are merely a retagging but, to me, imply a completely new tag, which technically they are, where there was none before but when I look at the difference I don't see any significant change except that you are substituting the full preferred tag. Maybe you would rephrase your summaries because then I will know what was done and not bother review your edit which may well be perfectly fine. I often use the word "rate" or "add params" when that is all I actually did to the tag even though I inserted the preferred tag instead of the old one. Hope that makes sense. Cheers and keep up the good work. BTW what do you know about having a bot tag all the untagged Irish stubs? (When you reply, please do so where I started the discussion.) ww2censor 15:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
(de-indent) OMG !!! ww2censor 03:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I fear we're getting a little bit polarised over at the CfD, I thought I'd just note that I really do appreciate your thoughts on the CfD above, but I had rather hoped you'd be prepared to WP:AGF on my viewpoints in the discussion.
Technically, I thought that User:Jw2034's proposal had some merit. FYI, I once spent a solid 6 months going through the mapping, licensing & proprties of those b****y North Sea licence blocks in some detail. I therefore assure you I fully recognise what a politically loaded topic this, and I note you are not alone in making your views clear. (You might also observe that I have not stated an opinion on who should own the oil & its revenues, just on the facts of how it is managed now.) That's also why I thought that, for consistency, any claims to "English" oil should be taken out as well as Scottish. Its pointless, its use is already being misunderstood. If you've looked into the history and operation of the oil industry you'd also appreciate there are many different ways that countries can handle and redistribute mineral explotation & distribution rights, which means that ownership & control might not follow the most 'obvious' route.
Suffice to say I feel there should be a way of handling the simple classification of this, while still maintaining accuracy, and without trying to double-guess how a devolved settlement would affect rights. (Personally, I'd think that anyone seeing a North Sea field in a UK Cat could work out the obvious way...)
So WP:NPA, thanks Ephebi 00:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Glad I could do so, after a heavy week for you! Johnbod 01:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating the Tolkein articles. I've been going through many articles on fiction like it trying to get them cleaned up for example my recent AFDs for the myst games. I had just looked at the various Tolkein articles thinking they needed cleaning up and wondered if anyone would ever have the guts to take them on. I also posted a rant on the talk page of WP:Fiction. I find it kind of funny that if you read through the archives originally it was a guideline to help clean things up, but has since been made so vague that it's now an excuse to keep everything. Is it just me or dose it seem like WP:Fiction is moving in a direction counter to other policies. Ridernyc 18:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Following on from Category:Rappers currently in prison, which you kindly zapped earlier, I've now noticed another familiar name at the new pages (category section): Category:Fictional drug users, a recreation of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 9#Category:Fictional drug users - although I'm prepared to accept it's a good faith recreation (the user's account was only created at the end of May, post-dating your deletion of the category in mid-May). Care to do the honours again, or shall I list it for CfD to see if consensus has changed? Regards, Bencherlite Talk 23:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The above named Arbitration case has closed. The Arbitration Committee decided that [a]ny user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The Committee also decided to uplift Vintagekits' indefinite block at the same time.
The full decision can be viewed here.
For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 08:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
If you have found evidence which meets the requirements set out at Wikipedia:Reward board#Erdos_number, please post it here. (Note that this reward relates to the CfD debate on Erdős number categories. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for finding a parent for my orphan. These beauts come up in uncategorized categories pages - these are just a short alphabetic range. Learn something new every day. :-) Carlossuarez46 17:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you take a peek at Dan_Antonioli. There is a copyright violation tag on it and I was just told the article is being deleted. Can you take a peek, and see what the fuss is about? I can't see the article anymore. There were some strong words exchanged last week in the deletion process, and I suspect this may be a continuation of the process to eliminate the article. The argument is now about how much text in the quote function of the citations constitutes fair use under the DMCA. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
As a / the leading light in categorization of British MPs, what do you think of Category:London Labour Party Member of Parliament? My initial thought (leaving aside the actual wording / use of a singular etc) is that it'd be overcategorization to group MPs by city and party, and I can't immediately find any parallel categories e.g. at Category:Labour MPs (UK) or Category:Conservative MPs (UK) to change my first impression. Regards, Bencherlite Talk 02:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Back at WT:Middle-earth, I've proposed to replace your notability (and secondary sources) tags on Tolkien pages with a single Template:ME-importance or Template:Merge JRRT. Do you agree with the points I set out there? Súrendil 19:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
An update - am starting to work on some of the articles this weekend. I did notice, though, while reviewing my watchlist, that others disagree with your notability assessments. Maybe there needs to be a clear distinction drawn between the generic tags "may not satisfy" and the explicit "I realise it is notable, but please provide sources to document this" requests? The problem with generic tags is that they are very anonymising. There is a world of difference between "I don't know whether this is notable or not, please tell me" and "this is notable, but we need to say so in the article". The former is OK when phrased politely, but when posed in the form of a generic tag, the subtext is "I haven't taken the time to research the topic, but I'm leaving this tag for others to do the work". Anyway, no offense intended, just wanted to jot down a few more general thoughts on the topic before starting the work. Carcharoth 09:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed someone (not me) removed a non cited source tag on the page. I have added an external link, would this suffice or is more information useful? Douglasnicol 21:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll do as you suggested and first post my objection at this page though I don't think it's necessary, it's just polite. There are a couple of things around this template (and not only its categorization scheme) which have shaken my respect to the Wikipedia community a great deal. I'm definitely going to raise my objections somewhere, I just I don't not yet what's the best place to get more attention. I've always believed the major aim of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopaedia for the benefit of readers all around the world and that the community around this project believes in fairness, objectiveness and definitely prefers a seeking consesus in all issues. The {{ Geobox}} template is a highly versatile template which can be used for virtually any type of geography related data, it's major advantages are consistent, easily parseable, user-friendly data format and a uniform data presentation with a lot of automation (unit conversions, automated locator maps etc.) It doesn't "compete" with other templates, it is not used by its creators to "eat-up" other templates as it is the case of other templates, it is just here and users/editors can decide whether they prefer this template or some other. After some users' request, the auto categorization scheme was started as no-one had come up with a better solution. It's absolutely fair to disagree with it, but these objections should be expressed in a polite and fair way which I'm afraid wasn't the case here at all.
User:Darwinek placed a suggestion (a mere suggestion) on my talk page which I answered. He didn't give any clear reason why he objected to the auto catgorization, just I think these categories shouldn't show up and another user wrote I am sure there is something in WP:MOS/WP:CAT. A bit vague, rather just personal point of view. Anyway, the sugestion got answered. Instead of clearly statting the reasons for the suggestion, this user moved to the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Question where he made some false statements, not based on anything that was written before, to which User:Francis Schonken repeatedly added abolutely absurd and false accusations (which I believe gave me a good ground to raise an official complaint). Yet at least he/she made the objections to the issue clear. I repeatdly asked anyone to continue a normal discussion where it rightly belonged: Template_talk:Geobox#Auto_categories. Though we (the people around the Geobox) were repeatedly accused of being unwilling to cooperate it was the other way round, the people who objected just made accusations, issued instructions and didn't bother to come up with any solutions or at least suggestions (besides suggesting to ditch the template completely).
I strongly object to:
I didn't want to make fuss about this treatment but I was possibly wrong as it seems this behavior becoming more and more common on Wikipedia.
And you were right there would be strong oppositing to the way how the discussion was closed. As there was obviously no consensus at all. I consider the situation when one user closes a discussion based on their own interpreatation of a debate as a breach of wiki etiquette (and it would be a breach of a discussion anyplace). It was stated good reasons weren't given. How come? What wiki policy is that which would say if a feature which is found useful by many users while not breaking any of basic rules (no personal attacks, NPOV, no bias etc.), not breaking or damaging the ideas on which Wiki is built is bad just because some users are able to browse thru thousands of often contradictory policies and guidelines (which I don't think are binding but a subject of debate and opposition). You state that technical categories such "Artciles needing this or that since October 2006" are OK in the main namespace for the benefit of a reader. Is it a general concensus or a consensus of a few self-proclaimed regulators? Besides, the appropriate page says: "They should at least be acknowledged or marked as self-references but not necessarily be deleted as they serve their purpose here on Wikipedia." I boldified the last section because it seems to explain perfectly what the situation is, these templates are not officially accepted or rejected but just some users think they are useful and so they have the right to be here. I'm definitely not that well acquainted with the thousands of rules and exceptions to these rules but I daresay I know well what the principle of Wikipedia is and that is a peaceful coorperation whose main target is to create a the largest and and free source of information for anyone to use. Those, who add geoboxes to articles, do not place rubbish to their articles but supply them with a lot of neatly organised data. Each Geobox added means a lot of work done. And the categories are highly useful for them. Furthermore, it is not true there was no reason given why the template was useful for a reader, so let me just repeat: it helps the reader find out articles which contain neatly organized geodata about a place (editors don't just add geoboxes with one or two chaotic lines, they fill them with a lot of useful data). Wikipedia is not here for editors but for readers first.
There were couple of views expressed in the debate, some wanted to keep the categories completely, some suggested renaming them so that they didn't contain the word geobox (which I accept was not a good idea at all and should be changed and asked about possible alternative names but as usual got no answers). I suggested I'll make changes to the template that would satisfy both sides but that I need to work out the best solution. No help was given. (Except USer:SEWilco who was the only one who really tried to help and suggested various solutions, thank you very much indeed.) But simply some users' voices mean nothing. I do not think this is the right course for Wikipedia, that so many discussions are flooded by users putting in tens of Wikipedia guidelines and policies rather than discussiing the merit of the thing: does this help improve Wikipedia or not? Adding those categories was not my idea, I did that following a request from other users as it seemed the most elegant solution. I do not personally care much about them but I'm strongly concerned about the free spirit of Wikipedia being damaged by users imposing rules for rules, creating world of their own bound by them, not respecting other views, refusals to discuss things, imposing orders but no viable solutions … – Caroig ( talk) 22:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear BrownHairedGirl,
I'm not too sure if you will receive this message but I was at school with a guy called Stephen who, I think had the title of Viscount Clandfield. I'm not completely sure of the spelling of "Clandfield" but he would've been at Stowe School in Stowe, Buckingham from around 1975 until 1980.
All I can remember of him was that he was quite an introvert, although he had a very sharp wit which often got him into trouble with both tutors and pupils. He had a particular interest in natural history.
The last I heard of him was that he'd relocated to Johannesburg in around 1988/89... I've not heard anything since then.
Hope this may be of some help to you.
Kind regards, David Goldstein ( d.goldstein@hotmail.co.uk ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misty1234 ( talk • contribs) 01:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm on the case. Thanks Jed keenan 12:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you deleted this article as spam. I looked at it very closely as part of a detailed review of spammy articles I did recently at Talk:List of network management systems. While a TTI Telecom-related editor did a lot of spammy stuff, I think the company is notable. As I recall, it's listed on the Israeli stock exchange; that alone is usually taken as a sign of notability. A quick search of Google's News Archives turns up 567; probably 80 to 90% are press releases, but that still leaves several dozen articles from Forbes, the Jerusalem Post, etc. I may have tagged it for notability (I don't remember) but if so, it was because:
I suggest if you still want to delete this that you restore the article and list it at AfD.
As for Category:TTI Telecom, all those individual products of TTI's are not notable and I proposed them for deletion several days ago. They'll likely be gone in a day or two leaving an empty category (or else a category of one if you restore TTI Telecom. I suggest that if you see these links go red, you just speedy the category:
-- A. B. (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering if this whole fight about notability fiction is going in the wrong direction, Kind of like trying to put out a forest fire by stomping on burning leaves. I'm wondering if we should make a proposal somewhere that some of these fictional wikiprojects be moved off of wikipeida. Ridernyc 16:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Your talk page in now in the "Unknown importance Tolkein article" catagory. Ridernyc 16:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I was going to offer $10 a couple of days ago, if there were no more Erdos posts, but thought it somewhat against the spirit of WP. Now I'm rather regretting it! Johnbod 17:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
If they didn't want the work they shouldn't have taken the job. No sympathy! Pile 'em on! Bury the barsteds! Otto4711 19:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
this was really funny: [19]. Carlossuarez46 21:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to ask if it's not allowed to create your own user category. This is for me very helpfull because I develope different article over a longer period and sometimes lose them. In the Dutch Wikipedia I have a similar category. Is there a policy here? - Mdd 22:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Phibsborough and Phibsboro are pretty similar, the result of a failed experiment. Could you help sort it out? ( Sarah777 23:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC))
Hi, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_27#Category:Books_in_discourse_analysis you voted "Rename per nom" here; the nom was (presumably) to delete, but i'd suggested a rename.
I thought I'd let Erdos run for the record in the end - it must be a contender. What will be next weeks hornet's nest? Cheers Johnbod 14:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
There are only c410, not over 600 US country stations, so I changed both our refs to the number, which I hope is ok. Johnbod 15:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi BrownHairedGirl, could you confirm what connection these ladies have to Ireland as they seem to have been born in Durham and lived all their life in England? Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be useful if you said on the talk page why you have labelled the article on Jonathan Sayeed (npov, cleanup needed; please discus on talk page).-- Toddy1 20:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
See reply on my talk page. Cheers Galloglass 21:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
LiberalViews ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was already warned about his conduct by ArbCom member Mackensen for this edit, and seems to be on a trolling mission right now. Firstly there's the removal of reliably sourced content claiming "propaganda", adding POV/weaselry (source says nothing of the sort). Then related to that there's claiming sources were used falsely, further similar accusations and trolling, trolling including inflammatory edit summary, more trolling, soapboxing, personal attacks and trolling, and repeated trolling on the WikiProject talk page. Just in case you aren't aware, IED refers to improvised explosive device. Advice welcome. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 14:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)