2004, 2005, 2006-01--2006-06, 2006-07--2006-10, 2006-10--2005-12, 2007-01--2007-06, 2007-07--2007-09, 2007-10--2007-12, 2008-01--2008-06, 2008-07--2008-09, 2008-10--2008-12, 2009-01--2009-03, 2009-04--2009-06, 2009-07--2009-09, 2009-10--2009-12, 2010-01, 2010-02, 2010-03, 2010-04, 2010-05, 2010-06, 2010-07, 2010-08, 2010-09, 2010-10, 2010-11, 2010-12, 2011-01, 2011-02, 2011-03, 2011-04, 2011-05, 2011-06, 2011-07, 2011-08, 2011-09, 2011-10, 2011-11, 2011-12, 2012-01, 2012-02, 2012-03, 2012-04, 2012-05, 2012-06, 2012-07, 2012-08, 2012-09, 2012-10, 2012-11, 2012-12, 2013-01, 2013-02, 2013-03, 2013-04, 2013-05, 2013-06, 2013-07, 2013-08, 2013-09, 2013-10, 2013-11, 2013-12, 2014-01, 2014-02, 2014-03, 2014-04, 2014-05, 2014-06, 2014-07, 2014-08, 2014-09, 2014-10, 2014-11, 2014-12, 2015-01, 2015-02, 2015-03, 2015-04, 2015-05, 2015-06, 2015-07, 2015-08, 2015-09, 2015-10, 2015-11, 2015-12, 2016-01, 2016-02, 2016-03, 2016-04, 2016-05, 2016-06, 2016-07, 2016-08, 2016-09, 2016-10, 2016-11, 2016-12, 2017-01, 2017-02, 2017-03, 2017-04, 2017-05, 2017-06, 2017-07, 2017-08, 2017-09, 2017-10, 2017-11, 2017-12, 2018-01, 2018-02, 2018-03, 2018-04, 2018-05, 2018-06, 2018-07, 2018-08, 2018-09, 2018-10, 2018-11, 2018-12, 2019-01, 2019-02, 2019-03, 2019-04, 2019-05, 2019-06, 2019-07, 2019-08, 2019-09, 2019-10, 2019-11, 2019-12, 2020-01, 2020-02, 2020-03, 2020-04, 2020-05, 2020-06, 2020-07, 2020-08, 2020-09, 2020-10, 2020-11, User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/list
Hi, you asked about an edit that I made to Shahzada. Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages), the items I removed from the page didn't appear to belong. Disambiguation pages are meant to be a list of links to Wikipedia articles, or may contains redlinks to articles which are likely to become wikipedia articles. The items that I removed didn't appear to fit the standards for disambig page items. In looking back at them, it may be that at least one of them could actually belong on the page.
I haven't been doing anything regarding disambiguation pages for over a year now, I'm not entirely up on the current standards. If you think that any of the items I removed may belong, feel free to put them back. -- Xyzzyplugh ( talk) 06:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Please do not attack users as you did in my userpage and instead focuse in the subject. You have no right in Wikipedia to assume that other users have no read about policies! I, have fully reviewed the history of edits in this article and nominated this article with full confidence. You have the right to vote and give your opinion and I have already responded to your comments. I hope I do not have to repeat myself. Regards. Parvazbato59 ( talk) 17:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
How's it going? Is there anything I can do to help alleviate your workload Fritzpoll ( talk) 13:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to
shahzada, did not appear to be constructive as the article shahzada (meaning son of shah) already exists under
shah, and therefore your edit has been reverted. Please use
the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the
welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Parvazbato59 (
talk)
14:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Just saw your reversion of my edits to the above. The detail in your version appears to be contrary to MOS:DAB, which reads "For people, include their birth and death years (when known), and only enough descriptive information that the reader can distinguish between different people with the same name."(my emphasis). Can we agree on less detailed descriptions? Also on looking at the page again, I think the Abdul Matin section of the page should probably deleted. – ukexpat ( talk) 01:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
– Drilnoth ( T • C) 01:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
– Drilnoth ( T • C) 02:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. There's a message of thanks for you from the author of the PC Pro article on my talk page. Cordless Larry ( talk) 13:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Talk:William Bainbridge has comments by you about the rank or grade of William Bainbridge, USN. The title of "Commodore" was used as a courtesy title in both the US and British navies to indicate operational command and control over a squadron of ships, and the rank of Admiral was not authorized until 1862, long after Bainbridge was dead. You see that I agrree with your comments. Beyond that, it seems to me that Bainbridge should be described more fully in the introductory paragraph. A large print of Constitution vs. Java hangs in my dining room, so I know about that battle. Should I now carry on with revisions?-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 21:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I finally answered yours :P -- Closedmouth ( talk) 15:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who took the time and trouble to take part in my RfA whether support, oppose or neutral. All comments are valued and will be considered carefully in the coming weeks. Feel free to add more advice on my talk page if you think I need it.
SpinningSpark
21:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC) In case you're wondering, the image is a smiley, just a little more aesthetic, but not as serious as the Mona Lisa |
![]() |
Thanks for uploading Image:Animatronic depiction of waterboarding from Coney Island.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
{{
di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn ( talk) 22:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your participation in my recent Request for adminship. You only asked me one question (which seemed odd since you usually ask more than one?) and I don't think you came back to respond to it because that was kind of late in the RfA. But thanks for asking at least, it gets my thoughts out into the open. :) Happy editing! BOZ ( talk) 04:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I added the tag with the mistaken assumption that the piece was still publicly viewable. As is is not, and there is a well sourced section discussing the piece, I have no objection to the inclusion of the image, and you are welcome to remove the deletion notice (a fuller explanation of how this image is not replaceable would be a good addition to the fair use rationale). Could you please link to the page that discusses the need to provide a link to a free alternative? The tag itself states only that a free alternative would be creatable, it doesn't mention the need to provide one. The non-free content criteria are clear that images can only be used with a fair use rationale if they are replaceable, as opposed to replaced. J Milburn ( talk) 21:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain in the future from adding empty references to articles as you did with Coney Island waterboarding thrill ride. This is disruptive editing. Debresser ( talk) 11:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Since you expressed concern about the algorithm that PhotoCatBot uses to identify stale reqphoto templates, this is to let you know that I did post the source code. It's at User:PhotoCatBot/Src/StaleReqphotoBot. Sorry about the delay. Tim Pierce ( talk) 04:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I just realised now that my article of disappeared-terrorist-never-found Abd Al-Rahim was in fact the same person as your Guantanamo-detainee article Abd Al Rahim Abdul Rassak Janko - so merged them. You may be interested to scan and see the videoclip of him, and photographs. Cheers. Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 05:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
– Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 12:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
– Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 13:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
TN X Man 04:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Abdullah Shahab, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Shahab. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Magioladitis ( talk) 16:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Genius 101 Guestbook 12:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
If you are the same person as User Geo Swan on Wikimedia Commons, please check my message to you on your account there. Please also make a reply on my Wikimedia Commons account...not my Wikipedia account here. Thank You, -- Leoboudv ( talk) 05:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Phillip E. Carter, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RadioFan ( talk) 04:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear Geo,
Your 2 images were passed by an Admin as you likely know (by now) but this is likely a one time deal. As an aside, what was your impression of Citizendium? I never edited there. I asked a contact of mine, who is now an Admin here, this question in 2008, and he said "all the action is here." This is my impression too. I know Sanger tries to create a better online dictionary but it seems that not enough people bother to edit there. They still lack an article on Ramesses II which is just incredible. I don't know what happened to Sanger's project but it doesn't seem to have caught fire...unlike Wikipedia with all its strengths and flaws. I can create articles like this here but frankly I doubt even Brittanica even knows about this obscure temple. I think this is the strength of Wikipedia. The weakness is it attracts crackpots, POV pushers and nationalist warriors--the bane of any sane discussion. Any views? Thank You, -- Leoboudv ( talk) 04:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you and I got off on the wrong foot over the Douglas Feith article? Perhaps my comments and editing came across as unnecessarily aggressive or antagonistic. That wasn't my intention, certainly, and I'm sorry if you were offended. My approach to BLPs is sometimes more aggressive than many editors are used to, which is something I have to keep in mind when trying to quickly improve articles with contributors who are regular editors. I think the results bear out the general object of my editing on this particular article, but I'll try to be more moderate in the future with my approach.
From your notes on my talkpage, I get the feeling that you've taken a negative view of our interaction on the Feith page and that this may have colored your interpretation of unrelated events - my username change and fact tagging minor elements of your Bush Six article. You may not be aware that I've been editing regularly for some time - not as long as you, perhaps, but long enough to be cognizant of name change etiquette and when its appropriate to discuss article issues on the talkpage. I don't mind constructive criticism, but I think there is room on Wikipedia for differing personal styles and I would hope that you can accept that not everyone will share yours. At any rate, I hope that if/when we edit the same area in the future we can do so with a fresh start and no hard feelings. Thanks, Nathan T (formerly Avruch) 16:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi - thanks for your message on my talk page. I had a feeling that some of the 'listas' entries I'd been adding were wrong, but I was adding it to every BLP I could find because another user had urged me to do so (see higher up my talk page). I apologise for my mistakes - I realise it isn't very helpful to try to sort a name that doesn't correspond to the English format of firstname-surname. In future, I'll only add the listas or defaultsort parameters when I'm certain of how a name should be listed.
By the way, if I haven't said this already: you're the guy who's responsible for creating all the biographies of Guantanamo Bay detainees, right? I've come across your work a lot on Wikipedia, and I just wanted to thank you for it. Unlike all the people creating pages on porn stars, internet celebrities, or their own companies, you're actually doing something important here. By recording all this information for posterity, you're providing a valuable service - to Wikipedia and to the world. I guess this probably sounds trite, but in all honesty, I don't think there's any other editor whose contributions I appreciate more. Robofish ( talk) 16:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi
Could you clarify what you meant in your edit summary here?
Cheers pablo hablo. 16:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The entire content of this article when I deleted it was:
<<A Taliban spokesman.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jvpjOKsien5NBMUGFTXxbbLSx5Fg>>
Obviously, I have no objection to you or anyone else writing a proper article on this person.
Also, I don't delete my old talk pages, I archive them. There is a link to the archives at the top of the current talk page. NawlinWiki ( talk) 21:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I added the cleanup tag because of a couple things:
It should be rewritten so that it matches Wikipedia's quality standards in my opinion. Leave any response on my talk page. Thanks. AeonicOmega ( talk) 03:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Winchester_model_1200.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot ( talk) 09:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
You have already exposed your views on AFD notifications on my talk page, and I have taken note of them. There's no need for a rerun, thank you. Raoulduke47 ( talk) 20:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you please not revert the edits without studying them? Your revert of my bot on Evan Kohlmann created all that bold text in Evan Kohlmann#Publications and Evan Kohlmann#References which really shouldn't be there... please understand that I don't at all mind you're bringing this up, but the reverts seem a little pointless to me. The bold text really shouldn't be there. Thanks! (there's a more full description of this at the ANI thread) – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 02:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi!
You have expressed concern about the nature of DEFAULTSORT and listas values and have deleted at least one incorrect listas. By merely deleting the incorrect listas value you caused the page to reappear in Category:Biography articles without listas parameter and there is a good possibility that the incorrect value will be reapplied.
I have tried to become informed about the naming conventions of the cultures in the Middle East but I do not pretend to understand them. I do know that most Arabic names are fine as they appear but I strongly suspect that Afghani names are not.
The goal is to get the number of "trivial" pages in Category:Biography articles without listas parameter, the pages that can be sorted by their PAGENAME, down to zero so that the non-trivial pages can be identified easily when they appear. Your assistance in this will be greatly appreciated. JimCubb ( talk) 19:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
|
First, anyone who says that all persons should fit into the "lastname, firstname" sorting scheme is absolutely wrong and is acting against guidelines. I know that a couple of years ago some extremely misguided editors ran things like bots to force pages into that scheme. Those times should be over and at least three of those editors have promised me to keep their hands off of sort values. (Those times resulted in the Ptolemaic kings' being sorted by their epithets. Ptolemy I Soter was sorted as "Soter, Ptolemy I". He is now sorted as "Ptolemy 01".) Not even all Europeans fall into the scheme. Titled persons almost never do. Be very happy that you are not involved with Icelanders. (For some categories they do but for Iceland-specific categories they don't.)
Second, as has been explained, the bots that are working on DEFAULTSORT and listas parameter values are taking their values from the other value. The people who are working are doing that as well as constructing values. The object of the exercise is to get a valid value for each on each Biography article. I and the ones I know about who are working are being very careful to follow the conventions that are applicable to the person involved.
Quadell has been kind enough to go through some of the Arabic names on the Category:Biography articles without listas parameter page and added a DEFAULTSORT value. He used a pipe "|" instead of a colon ":" but a value was inserted. (I asked him to do this because his name figured quite prominently on the history of the Arabic Naming Convention article and its talk page.) I went looking for a talk page on Category:Biography articles without living parameter to use as an example of my first and second point and the one I found is almost too good.
On 15 May Quadell put a DEFAULTSORT value of "Abd Dhiyab al-Ajili" on the main page of Abd Dhiyab al-Ajili. On 22 May Yobot changed the pipe to a colon. On 25 May Listasbot copied that value and inserted it as the listas parameter. I have put in the living parameter and now the article should not appear in any category that would indicate an administrative problem in the article. In the categories where the article does appear it will appear in the correct place.
The first name that is in Category:Biography articles without listas parameter that I am certain concerns you, because it has your note on it, is Abdul Rahman. While I am not as certain as you are that Rahman is not an inherited surname in the European sense (Afghanis are most definitely not Arabs and their language is not related to Arabic), because of your note I would put the DEFAULTSORT of "Abdul Rahman" on the article and make the listas parameter on the WP Biog banner also "Abdul Rahman". (I would also put the WP Biog banner on top so that the blp banner is on top. I may put a talk banner on the page.) Poof! Abdul Rahman is not one of the pages that will hide the pages like Talk:Abigal Merwin and Talk:Abner Silver.
What is more, the ones that concern you are easier to do than many of the Europeans as all that is needed is to paste the page name into the values. Some European names are in bits and pieces.
Once everything is done, listasbot and the worker bees have made sure that all biography talk pages have a listas parameter, defaultbot has made sure that the listas and DEFAULTSORT values are equal and the dust has settled, I am going to push strongly for a concentrated manual scrutiny of every biography page and a hidden category for pages with questionable sort values. This would recruit members with experience and expertise in this area who would know that Arabs generally do not have inheritable surnames, East Asian names are already in "lastname, firstname" format but generally do not have a comma, and other bits of arcana. The hidden category would be for those pages that look wrong but are out of the individual editor's ken.
After all that are you willing to correct wrong values that you find rather than delete them? Could you be persuaded to assign correct values to the pages on your watchlist? As I noted before, someone is going to do it. The best way to insure that it is done correctly would be to do it yourself.
Thanks for the use of the hall.
Your edits here are assuming bad faith. Please assume good faith when editing with others on Wikipedia. - RunningOnBrains( talk page) 03:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Claims of WP:BLP1E, in this particular case, give the very unfortunate appearance of an attempt to sanitize the historical record regarding an incident embarrassing to Americans. No doubt this was not the actual intent of the nominator, and those expressing a delete or merge. But it gives this unfortunate appearance nevertheless...
Yep, that and I thought it sounded better than most any other name I could think of. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 10:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, here is what I have done.
These are all things that you could have done.
I believe that an appeal to Admins is appropriate and that you should make it. However, please provide valid links.
By the way, there is a bigger problem with the bot. It is putting the DEFAULTSORT value under the category tags rather than above them.
As I noted above, much of what I did in regards to Drilbot were thing I feel you should have done. Furthermore, as you have not protected the relevant pages on your watchlist from bots that add DEFAULTSORT / listas parameters to page that lack either by putting those values on those pages, I believe that the description is accurate.
It would take you less than half the time it would take me because I would want to read parts of the articles and you do not have to read them. I have asked User:Afghana to look at the pages in the Guantanamo Detainees Category and protect them for you. I believe she is somewhat familiar with the contents of the articles and she has the expertise to do things correctly and have the results accepted by you even if the results do not always conform to your idea of what is correct. (See Abdul Karim (Guantanamo detainee 520).)
There appear to be plenty of news articles for Latvia–Luxembourg relations, do you have time to help integrate them into the article? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 06:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I have a few questions. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 13:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
A recent decision to retain or delete this content on Wikipedia has been appealed. You may wish to contribute to the review. While the review is in progress, you are welcome to edit the article, but please do not blank it or remove this notice. For more information, particularly on merging or moving articles under review, please see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. |
Iqinn ( talk) 17:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that. It was an unfortunate choice of words. :/ TN X Man 16:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
– Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 20:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm responding to your message on my talk page of 23 May. I'm sorry for getting back to you so late. I've left a comment on Talk:Toucan regarding the link that I removed from the article. Cheers, ... discospinster talk 17:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Abu Obeida training camp and Abu Abaida Training Camp Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 21:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hazrat Ali, Afghan politician.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Geo Swan ( talk) 16:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I have replied to your questions at my talk page. CIreland ( talk) 18:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't really remember but I think I did it because it seemed more logical that people get put into different beginning letters instead of everyone being categorized under "Abdul". I don't see anything at Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#Ordering_names_in_a_category about Arabic names. Anyway, I did not rely on a bot. -- Ysangkok ( talk) 00:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I've just noticed some comments which you made a couple of months ago in the talk.page of the article on sloops, and as you made a couple of incorrect statements, I trust you won't mind if I put you right. The article is actually correct in mentioning that ship-sloops (and other sloops) were not Post-Captains commands. The definition of the naval sloop was that it was NOT commanded by a Post-Captain. A Post-Captain was only appointed to command a Post-ship (i.e. a Rated ships). I'm afraid you are misinformed.
You are also incorrect in your other assertion that ship-sloops were flush-decked; the majority of ship-sloops in the Royal Navy were built with a quarter-deck and forecastle, the most numerous designs in the Royal Navy during the 1793-1815 period being the Cormorant class (31 vessels built to this design) and the Merlin class (16 vessels built to this design). There were of course a certain number of ship-sloops which were flush-decked, but these were mainly purchased ships or prizes taken from other navies and added to the RN. Most brig-sloops, on the other hand, were flush-decked. Rif Winfield ( talk) 17:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Done. Regards, –
Juliancolton |
Talk
00:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
WRT your note, I too considered whether a deletion review was in order. I would however have tried to conduct a civil dialogue with the closing admin first. Per AAGF I would always do my best to strictly follow the guidelines, and make sure my questions of the closing admin were respectful of their being a volunteer, trying to do their best. I am sorry to inform you that you and Stifle are mistaken if you think this is always useful. In my experience some administrators can't be bothered to make any effort to respond to question. Many other administrators give pro forma replies that are basically just a big Foxtrot Oscar. Geo Swan ( talk) 23:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
FYI: I've left a reply which comments what is happening at User_talk:Kingboyk#question.... "Quite a paradox, if you think about it" -- CyclePat ( talk) 16:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Consider it absent-mindedness. :) I've userfied per your request, and have added the {{ NOINDEX}} tag to it. Please do not remove this tag, as it prevents the content from being spidered by Google. I assume you wish to assess the article compared to the AfD and determine what can be done: if you decide nothing can be done, please ping me and let me know so that I can return the article to its deleted state at its old location. Alternatively, if you feel the AfD was lacking from your input because of the lack of notification, please feel free to go straight to DRV, simply notifying me on my talkpage - I shan't take it personally, since I think it would be a sign that you were unable to influence consensus due to a lack of notification, and that it is that aspect of process you are challenging rather than the close itself. Best wishes, Fritzpoll ( talk) 08:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Basij (Afghan student organization), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. -- Lambiam 09:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I think I understand your question! In wiki, it is the common practice (as it is is many places, like the phone book) to sort people by last name then first. So, President Barack Obama would be categorised as Obama, Barack. That is why I did that in the article you mentioned. BUT I know some cultures (China is one, I think) put the last name first then the first name. So, if Afghanistan is one of them, please change it. But the bottom line is, biographical articles are sorted by last name, not first. Postcard Cathy ( talk) 22:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
|listas=
parameter on the
talk page. All should be well.
2004, 2005, 2006-01--2006-06, 2006-07--2006-10, 2006-10--2005-12, 2007-01--2007-06, 2007-07--2007-09, 2007-10--2007-12, 2008-01--2008-06, 2008-07--2008-09, 2008-10--2008-12, 2009-01--2009-03, 2009-04--2009-06, 2009-07--2009-09, 2009-10--2009-12, 2010-01, 2010-02, 2010-03, 2010-04, 2010-05, 2010-06, 2010-07, 2010-08, 2010-09, 2010-10, 2010-11, 2010-12, 2011-01, 2011-02, 2011-03, 2011-04, 2011-05, 2011-06, 2011-07, 2011-08, 2011-09, 2011-10, 2011-11, 2011-12, 2012-01, 2012-02, 2012-03, 2012-04, 2012-05, 2012-06, 2012-07, 2012-08, 2012-09, 2012-10, 2012-11, 2012-12, 2013-01, 2013-02, 2013-03, 2013-04, 2013-05, 2013-06, 2013-07, 2013-08, 2013-09, 2013-10, 2013-11, 2013-12, 2014-01, 2014-02, 2014-03, 2014-04, 2014-05, 2014-06, 2014-07, 2014-08, 2014-09, 2014-10, 2014-11, 2014-12, 2015-01, 2015-02, 2015-03, 2015-04, 2015-05, 2015-06, 2015-07, 2015-08, 2015-09, 2015-10, 2015-11, 2015-12, 2016-01, 2016-02, 2016-03, 2016-04, 2016-05, 2016-06, 2016-07, 2016-08, 2016-09, 2016-10, 2016-11, 2016-12, 2017-01, 2017-02, 2017-03, 2017-04, 2017-05, 2017-06, 2017-07, 2017-08, 2017-09, 2017-10, 2017-11, 2017-12, 2018-01, 2018-02, 2018-03, 2018-04, 2018-05, 2018-06, 2018-07, 2018-08, 2018-09, 2018-10, 2018-11, 2018-12, 2019-01, 2019-02, 2019-03, 2019-04, 2019-05, 2019-06, 2019-07, 2019-08, 2019-09, 2019-10, 2019-11, 2019-12, 2020-01, 2020-02, 2020-03, 2020-04, 2020-05, 2020-06, 2020-07, 2020-08, 2020-09, 2020-10, 2020-11, User Talk:Geo Swan/archive/list
Hi, you asked about an edit that I made to Shahzada. Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages), the items I removed from the page didn't appear to belong. Disambiguation pages are meant to be a list of links to Wikipedia articles, or may contains redlinks to articles which are likely to become wikipedia articles. The items that I removed didn't appear to fit the standards for disambig page items. In looking back at them, it may be that at least one of them could actually belong on the page.
I haven't been doing anything regarding disambiguation pages for over a year now, I'm not entirely up on the current standards. If you think that any of the items I removed may belong, feel free to put them back. -- Xyzzyplugh ( talk) 06:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Please do not attack users as you did in my userpage and instead focuse in the subject. You have no right in Wikipedia to assume that other users have no read about policies! I, have fully reviewed the history of edits in this article and nominated this article with full confidence. You have the right to vote and give your opinion and I have already responded to your comments. I hope I do not have to repeat myself. Regards. Parvazbato59 ( talk) 17:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
How's it going? Is there anything I can do to help alleviate your workload Fritzpoll ( talk) 13:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to
shahzada, did not appear to be constructive as the article shahzada (meaning son of shah) already exists under
shah, and therefore your edit has been reverted. Please use
the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the
welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Parvazbato59 (
talk)
14:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Just saw your reversion of my edits to the above. The detail in your version appears to be contrary to MOS:DAB, which reads "For people, include their birth and death years (when known), and only enough descriptive information that the reader can distinguish between different people with the same name."(my emphasis). Can we agree on less detailed descriptions? Also on looking at the page again, I think the Abdul Matin section of the page should probably deleted. – ukexpat ( talk) 01:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
– Drilnoth ( T • C) 01:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
– Drilnoth ( T • C) 02:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. There's a message of thanks for you from the author of the PC Pro article on my talk page. Cordless Larry ( talk) 13:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Talk:William Bainbridge has comments by you about the rank or grade of William Bainbridge, USN. The title of "Commodore" was used as a courtesy title in both the US and British navies to indicate operational command and control over a squadron of ships, and the rank of Admiral was not authorized until 1862, long after Bainbridge was dead. You see that I agrree with your comments. Beyond that, it seems to me that Bainbridge should be described more fully in the introductory paragraph. A large print of Constitution vs. Java hangs in my dining room, so I know about that battle. Should I now carry on with revisions?-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 21:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I finally answered yours :P -- Closedmouth ( talk) 15:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who took the time and trouble to take part in my RfA whether support, oppose or neutral. All comments are valued and will be considered carefully in the coming weeks. Feel free to add more advice on my talk page if you think I need it.
SpinningSpark
21:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC) In case you're wondering, the image is a smiley, just a little more aesthetic, but not as serious as the Mona Lisa |
![]() |
Thanks for uploading Image:Animatronic depiction of waterboarding from Coney Island.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
{{
di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn ( talk) 22:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your participation in my recent Request for adminship. You only asked me one question (which seemed odd since you usually ask more than one?) and I don't think you came back to respond to it because that was kind of late in the RfA. But thanks for asking at least, it gets my thoughts out into the open. :) Happy editing! BOZ ( talk) 04:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I added the tag with the mistaken assumption that the piece was still publicly viewable. As is is not, and there is a well sourced section discussing the piece, I have no objection to the inclusion of the image, and you are welcome to remove the deletion notice (a fuller explanation of how this image is not replaceable would be a good addition to the fair use rationale). Could you please link to the page that discusses the need to provide a link to a free alternative? The tag itself states only that a free alternative would be creatable, it doesn't mention the need to provide one. The non-free content criteria are clear that images can only be used with a fair use rationale if they are replaceable, as opposed to replaced. J Milburn ( talk) 21:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain in the future from adding empty references to articles as you did with Coney Island waterboarding thrill ride. This is disruptive editing. Debresser ( talk) 11:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Since you expressed concern about the algorithm that PhotoCatBot uses to identify stale reqphoto templates, this is to let you know that I did post the source code. It's at User:PhotoCatBot/Src/StaleReqphotoBot. Sorry about the delay. Tim Pierce ( talk) 04:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I just realised now that my article of disappeared-terrorist-never-found Abd Al-Rahim was in fact the same person as your Guantanamo-detainee article Abd Al Rahim Abdul Rassak Janko - so merged them. You may be interested to scan and see the videoclip of him, and photographs. Cheers. Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 05:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
– Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 12:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
– Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 13:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
TN X Man 04:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Abdullah Shahab, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Shahab. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Magioladitis ( talk) 16:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Genius 101 Guestbook 12:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
If you are the same person as User Geo Swan on Wikimedia Commons, please check my message to you on your account there. Please also make a reply on my Wikimedia Commons account...not my Wikipedia account here. Thank You, -- Leoboudv ( talk) 05:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Phillip E. Carter, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RadioFan ( talk) 04:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear Geo,
Your 2 images were passed by an Admin as you likely know (by now) but this is likely a one time deal. As an aside, what was your impression of Citizendium? I never edited there. I asked a contact of mine, who is now an Admin here, this question in 2008, and he said "all the action is here." This is my impression too. I know Sanger tries to create a better online dictionary but it seems that not enough people bother to edit there. They still lack an article on Ramesses II which is just incredible. I don't know what happened to Sanger's project but it doesn't seem to have caught fire...unlike Wikipedia with all its strengths and flaws. I can create articles like this here but frankly I doubt even Brittanica even knows about this obscure temple. I think this is the strength of Wikipedia. The weakness is it attracts crackpots, POV pushers and nationalist warriors--the bane of any sane discussion. Any views? Thank You, -- Leoboudv ( talk) 04:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you and I got off on the wrong foot over the Douglas Feith article? Perhaps my comments and editing came across as unnecessarily aggressive or antagonistic. That wasn't my intention, certainly, and I'm sorry if you were offended. My approach to BLPs is sometimes more aggressive than many editors are used to, which is something I have to keep in mind when trying to quickly improve articles with contributors who are regular editors. I think the results bear out the general object of my editing on this particular article, but I'll try to be more moderate in the future with my approach.
From your notes on my talkpage, I get the feeling that you've taken a negative view of our interaction on the Feith page and that this may have colored your interpretation of unrelated events - my username change and fact tagging minor elements of your Bush Six article. You may not be aware that I've been editing regularly for some time - not as long as you, perhaps, but long enough to be cognizant of name change etiquette and when its appropriate to discuss article issues on the talkpage. I don't mind constructive criticism, but I think there is room on Wikipedia for differing personal styles and I would hope that you can accept that not everyone will share yours. At any rate, I hope that if/when we edit the same area in the future we can do so with a fresh start and no hard feelings. Thanks, Nathan T (formerly Avruch) 16:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi - thanks for your message on my talk page. I had a feeling that some of the 'listas' entries I'd been adding were wrong, but I was adding it to every BLP I could find because another user had urged me to do so (see higher up my talk page). I apologise for my mistakes - I realise it isn't very helpful to try to sort a name that doesn't correspond to the English format of firstname-surname. In future, I'll only add the listas or defaultsort parameters when I'm certain of how a name should be listed.
By the way, if I haven't said this already: you're the guy who's responsible for creating all the biographies of Guantanamo Bay detainees, right? I've come across your work a lot on Wikipedia, and I just wanted to thank you for it. Unlike all the people creating pages on porn stars, internet celebrities, or their own companies, you're actually doing something important here. By recording all this information for posterity, you're providing a valuable service - to Wikipedia and to the world. I guess this probably sounds trite, but in all honesty, I don't think there's any other editor whose contributions I appreciate more. Robofish ( talk) 16:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi
Could you clarify what you meant in your edit summary here?
Cheers pablo hablo. 16:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The entire content of this article when I deleted it was:
<<A Taliban spokesman.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jvpjOKsien5NBMUGFTXxbbLSx5Fg>>
Obviously, I have no objection to you or anyone else writing a proper article on this person.
Also, I don't delete my old talk pages, I archive them. There is a link to the archives at the top of the current talk page. NawlinWiki ( talk) 21:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I added the cleanup tag because of a couple things:
It should be rewritten so that it matches Wikipedia's quality standards in my opinion. Leave any response on my talk page. Thanks. AeonicOmega ( talk) 03:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Winchester_model_1200.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot ( talk) 09:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
You have already exposed your views on AFD notifications on my talk page, and I have taken note of them. There's no need for a rerun, thank you. Raoulduke47 ( talk) 20:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you please not revert the edits without studying them? Your revert of my bot on Evan Kohlmann created all that bold text in Evan Kohlmann#Publications and Evan Kohlmann#References which really shouldn't be there... please understand that I don't at all mind you're bringing this up, but the reverts seem a little pointless to me. The bold text really shouldn't be there. Thanks! (there's a more full description of this at the ANI thread) – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 02:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi!
You have expressed concern about the nature of DEFAULTSORT and listas values and have deleted at least one incorrect listas. By merely deleting the incorrect listas value you caused the page to reappear in Category:Biography articles without listas parameter and there is a good possibility that the incorrect value will be reapplied.
I have tried to become informed about the naming conventions of the cultures in the Middle East but I do not pretend to understand them. I do know that most Arabic names are fine as they appear but I strongly suspect that Afghani names are not.
The goal is to get the number of "trivial" pages in Category:Biography articles without listas parameter, the pages that can be sorted by their PAGENAME, down to zero so that the non-trivial pages can be identified easily when they appear. Your assistance in this will be greatly appreciated. JimCubb ( talk) 19:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
|
First, anyone who says that all persons should fit into the "lastname, firstname" sorting scheme is absolutely wrong and is acting against guidelines. I know that a couple of years ago some extremely misguided editors ran things like bots to force pages into that scheme. Those times should be over and at least three of those editors have promised me to keep their hands off of sort values. (Those times resulted in the Ptolemaic kings' being sorted by their epithets. Ptolemy I Soter was sorted as "Soter, Ptolemy I". He is now sorted as "Ptolemy 01".) Not even all Europeans fall into the scheme. Titled persons almost never do. Be very happy that you are not involved with Icelanders. (For some categories they do but for Iceland-specific categories they don't.)
Second, as has been explained, the bots that are working on DEFAULTSORT and listas parameter values are taking their values from the other value. The people who are working are doing that as well as constructing values. The object of the exercise is to get a valid value for each on each Biography article. I and the ones I know about who are working are being very careful to follow the conventions that are applicable to the person involved.
Quadell has been kind enough to go through some of the Arabic names on the Category:Biography articles without listas parameter page and added a DEFAULTSORT value. He used a pipe "|" instead of a colon ":" but a value was inserted. (I asked him to do this because his name figured quite prominently on the history of the Arabic Naming Convention article and its talk page.) I went looking for a talk page on Category:Biography articles without living parameter to use as an example of my first and second point and the one I found is almost too good.
On 15 May Quadell put a DEFAULTSORT value of "Abd Dhiyab al-Ajili" on the main page of Abd Dhiyab al-Ajili. On 22 May Yobot changed the pipe to a colon. On 25 May Listasbot copied that value and inserted it as the listas parameter. I have put in the living parameter and now the article should not appear in any category that would indicate an administrative problem in the article. In the categories where the article does appear it will appear in the correct place.
The first name that is in Category:Biography articles without listas parameter that I am certain concerns you, because it has your note on it, is Abdul Rahman. While I am not as certain as you are that Rahman is not an inherited surname in the European sense (Afghanis are most definitely not Arabs and their language is not related to Arabic), because of your note I would put the DEFAULTSORT of "Abdul Rahman" on the article and make the listas parameter on the WP Biog banner also "Abdul Rahman". (I would also put the WP Biog banner on top so that the blp banner is on top. I may put a talk banner on the page.) Poof! Abdul Rahman is not one of the pages that will hide the pages like Talk:Abigal Merwin and Talk:Abner Silver.
What is more, the ones that concern you are easier to do than many of the Europeans as all that is needed is to paste the page name into the values. Some European names are in bits and pieces.
Once everything is done, listasbot and the worker bees have made sure that all biography talk pages have a listas parameter, defaultbot has made sure that the listas and DEFAULTSORT values are equal and the dust has settled, I am going to push strongly for a concentrated manual scrutiny of every biography page and a hidden category for pages with questionable sort values. This would recruit members with experience and expertise in this area who would know that Arabs generally do not have inheritable surnames, East Asian names are already in "lastname, firstname" format but generally do not have a comma, and other bits of arcana. The hidden category would be for those pages that look wrong but are out of the individual editor's ken.
After all that are you willing to correct wrong values that you find rather than delete them? Could you be persuaded to assign correct values to the pages on your watchlist? As I noted before, someone is going to do it. The best way to insure that it is done correctly would be to do it yourself.
Thanks for the use of the hall.
Your edits here are assuming bad faith. Please assume good faith when editing with others on Wikipedia. - RunningOnBrains( talk page) 03:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Claims of WP:BLP1E, in this particular case, give the very unfortunate appearance of an attempt to sanitize the historical record regarding an incident embarrassing to Americans. No doubt this was not the actual intent of the nominator, and those expressing a delete or merge. But it gives this unfortunate appearance nevertheless...
Yep, that and I thought it sounded better than most any other name I could think of. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 10:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, here is what I have done.
These are all things that you could have done.
I believe that an appeal to Admins is appropriate and that you should make it. However, please provide valid links.
By the way, there is a bigger problem with the bot. It is putting the DEFAULTSORT value under the category tags rather than above them.
As I noted above, much of what I did in regards to Drilbot were thing I feel you should have done. Furthermore, as you have not protected the relevant pages on your watchlist from bots that add DEFAULTSORT / listas parameters to page that lack either by putting those values on those pages, I believe that the description is accurate.
It would take you less than half the time it would take me because I would want to read parts of the articles and you do not have to read them. I have asked User:Afghana to look at the pages in the Guantanamo Detainees Category and protect them for you. I believe she is somewhat familiar with the contents of the articles and she has the expertise to do things correctly and have the results accepted by you even if the results do not always conform to your idea of what is correct. (See Abdul Karim (Guantanamo detainee 520).)
There appear to be plenty of news articles for Latvia–Luxembourg relations, do you have time to help integrate them into the article? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 06:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I have a few questions. – Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 13:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
A recent decision to retain or delete this content on Wikipedia has been appealed. You may wish to contribute to the review. While the review is in progress, you are welcome to edit the article, but please do not blank it or remove this notice. For more information, particularly on merging or moving articles under review, please see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. |
Iqinn ( talk) 17:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that. It was an unfortunate choice of words. :/ TN X Man 16:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
– Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 20:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm responding to your message on my talk page of 23 May. I'm sorry for getting back to you so late. I've left a comment on Talk:Toucan regarding the link that I removed from the article. Cheers, ... discospinster talk 17:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Abu Obeida training camp and Abu Abaida Training Camp Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 21:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hazrat Ali, Afghan politician.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Geo Swan ( talk) 16:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I have replied to your questions at my talk page. CIreland ( talk) 18:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't really remember but I think I did it because it seemed more logical that people get put into different beginning letters instead of everyone being categorized under "Abdul". I don't see anything at Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#Ordering_names_in_a_category about Arabic names. Anyway, I did not rely on a bot. -- Ysangkok ( talk) 00:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I've just noticed some comments which you made a couple of months ago in the talk.page of the article on sloops, and as you made a couple of incorrect statements, I trust you won't mind if I put you right. The article is actually correct in mentioning that ship-sloops (and other sloops) were not Post-Captains commands. The definition of the naval sloop was that it was NOT commanded by a Post-Captain. A Post-Captain was only appointed to command a Post-ship (i.e. a Rated ships). I'm afraid you are misinformed.
You are also incorrect in your other assertion that ship-sloops were flush-decked; the majority of ship-sloops in the Royal Navy were built with a quarter-deck and forecastle, the most numerous designs in the Royal Navy during the 1793-1815 period being the Cormorant class (31 vessels built to this design) and the Merlin class (16 vessels built to this design). There were of course a certain number of ship-sloops which were flush-decked, but these were mainly purchased ships or prizes taken from other navies and added to the RN. Most brig-sloops, on the other hand, were flush-decked. Rif Winfield ( talk) 17:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Done. Regards, –
Juliancolton |
Talk
00:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
WRT your note, I too considered whether a deletion review was in order. I would however have tried to conduct a civil dialogue with the closing admin first. Per AAGF I would always do my best to strictly follow the guidelines, and make sure my questions of the closing admin were respectful of their being a volunteer, trying to do their best. I am sorry to inform you that you and Stifle are mistaken if you think this is always useful. In my experience some administrators can't be bothered to make any effort to respond to question. Many other administrators give pro forma replies that are basically just a big Foxtrot Oscar. Geo Swan ( talk) 23:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
FYI: I've left a reply which comments what is happening at User_talk:Kingboyk#question.... "Quite a paradox, if you think about it" -- CyclePat ( talk) 16:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Consider it absent-mindedness. :) I've userfied per your request, and have added the {{ NOINDEX}} tag to it. Please do not remove this tag, as it prevents the content from being spidered by Google. I assume you wish to assess the article compared to the AfD and determine what can be done: if you decide nothing can be done, please ping me and let me know so that I can return the article to its deleted state at its old location. Alternatively, if you feel the AfD was lacking from your input because of the lack of notification, please feel free to go straight to DRV, simply notifying me on my talkpage - I shan't take it personally, since I think it would be a sign that you were unable to influence consensus due to a lack of notification, and that it is that aspect of process you are challenging rather than the close itself. Best wishes, Fritzpoll ( talk) 08:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Basij (Afghan student organization), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. -- Lambiam 09:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I think I understand your question! In wiki, it is the common practice (as it is is many places, like the phone book) to sort people by last name then first. So, President Barack Obama would be categorised as Obama, Barack. That is why I did that in the article you mentioned. BUT I know some cultures (China is one, I think) put the last name first then the first name. So, if Afghanistan is one of them, please change it. But the bottom line is, biographical articles are sorted by last name, not first. Postcard Cathy ( talk) 22:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
|listas=
parameter on the
talk page. All should be well.