User talk:Erechtheus/Archive/Archive01

Removing AfD warnings

Yeah, I generally can't remember off-hand all of the warnings. I use Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace because it is very diffucult to remember every little warning! Hope that helps... Ian Manka Talk to me! 23:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) Erechtheus 23:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All That Jazz

) It wasn't as bad as I was expecting, actually. I'd give it a thumbs-up to anyone who likes strawberry soda. Not for me, though. Lambertman 02:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfD

I also wish unethical behavior were notable. Sadly, it is not -and attorneys are not alone in this, unfortunately. jawesq 01:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck to YOU!!! When you get your monthly state bar newsletters, you will see attorneys getting disciplined or disbarred. Ethics is all important, and we need more ethical attorneys. By the way, I also am owned by a couple cats (and a couple dogs)! jawesq 01:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A6 Attack page?

What is this? I see you suggested it for Jim Shapiro, which is great. Where did you find this and what is it? Thanks!jawesq 03:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at that. I think if you look at that again, A6 (attack page) is under 'non-speedy' deletion. It's a very good reason, however, in addition to non-notability.jawesq 03:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take that back. I believe you are correct. Sometimes the WIki instructions are VERY badly writtenjawesq 03:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to ask an admin about this - one who helped me earlier today. Maybe he will agree. I hope so.jawesq 03:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Shapiro Quotes

Please look at the quotation under 'external links'. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jim_Shapiro This links to another Wiki project, quotations, that was nominated for deletion, as well. Your input there is welcome. Thanks!jawesq 03:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14 Year Old Girls

Thanks for your message. Although the article survived one AfD it doesn't preclude it from being nominated again though it would have to be for a different reason or it will only be kept again. If you want to pursue deletion then have a read of Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Although no rules are hard and fast on Wikipedia if you follow them you're less likely to be contested. As you clearly understand, I removed the tag as it was not a suitable candidate for speedy deletion though if you go through the AfD process, the delete tag cannot be removed until a decision is reached by a sysop based on the arguments presented by those who respond to the AfD. Good luck! Mallanox 22:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please re-visit the AfD. I found a bunch of info that establishes notability. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 18:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finding a stub

Hi. Glad to have been of help to you and your Azerbijan-style article. I kind of roam around looking for articles whose stub definitions need refining, so for me it was all in a day's work. For your reference, in case you weren't aware of it, there's a good list of stub templates here which is where I usually head if I can't remember what I'm doing. All the best. Budgiekiller 18:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. For your interest, I usually head here for categories too. It starts a little on the abstract side, but it's probably better to have an abstract cat than no cat at all. Cheers. Budgiekiller 18:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I understand that I should not write an article about me. You should note that the article was not written by me. Hence I am not able to comprehend the Vanity Issue. Can you please clarify it. My problem is not with deleting or keeping it. It is regarding to the mud sligning that has been happening in the AFD Debate of various individuals (as well as corporates / Organisations etc) after nominating the article for debate.

I was pushed into editing the article only for the past 2 days after I get comments like "non-notable" "exam-cram" "limited shelf life". How am I to oppose it. If it is an article, we can remove that citing lack of sources.

And then the important question is - How will the article come under vanity when I did not write it.Doctor Bruno 00:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another important Issue - User Blocked

Just because you have mentioned it, I thought that I will bring the issue of User Blocked to your attention.

For the past few days, whenever I try to edit an article or talk page, I get a reply that the user has been blocked. The IP given is Google's IP. After few minutes, when I click the 'edit this page' I am able to edit

I am editing from India

Hence I feel that there is a problem some where, perhaps related to the Google ToolbarDoctor Bruno 14:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will get a snapshot next time and send that to the Admin Doctor Bruno 14:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/78/Wikiblock.jpg/800px-Wikiblock.jpg

Year pronunciation

I saw you voted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Year pronunciation. I have to say that the nominator of this page was an Afd vandal. Georgia guy 16:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florian Grassl

You nominated Florian Grassl for deletion partly because there was "no information [in the article] that would establish the individual's notability". I discovered much of the article was removed in a previous edit and have restored the missing information. This may not sway your nomination, but I thought it'd be nice to let you know. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 08:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. I should have checked that myself. You are right that it does not change my assessment. It does change my rationale, though. Erechtheus 18:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snape's Worst Memory

Apparently, Snape's Worst Memory is a story in the Harry Potter series, or some kind of substory. I'm not sure, but there are pages that link to it. You might want to check the article links and reconsider the {{db-nonsense}} tag. I think the article could use a lot more cleanup and some context to indicate just what it's about, but in the Harry Potter context, it isn't total nonsense. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 18:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I should have rechecked the article links more closely. It turns out that it was deleted (per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snape's Worst Memory), so it really should have been tagged with {{db-repost}}. I didn't even notice that. Ah, the joys of editing when half-asleep. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 21:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm. Thanks... St. Gummarus

Wow. I barely had time to start adding the other text about St. Gummarus I was working on before this got tagged for deletion. Three whole minutes. Thanks for the WP:AGF. --evrik 18:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• ummm... next time you could wait more than three minutes. --evrik 18:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• BTW, I just got to Gummarus. --evrik 21:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice. I definitely approve of that penny's worth of electricity or whatever. He seems quite interesting. Erechtheus 03:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: St. Gummarus

No problem. =) In general, articles with only links do get deleted (CSD A3), but this specifically does not apply to disambiguation pages (and practically, not to lists that are better served as categories, but as a rule, those should be turned into categories too).

I suggest you read through the criteria, as well Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Explanations (which is incomplete). The criteria are meant to be rather clear-cut. Patent nonsense is just that: Stuff that makes absolutely no sense however you look at it, and doesn't look like it's written in any legible language Generally, stuff that looks like it may make some sense are better PRODded. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reza rivzi

Thanks! It's likely to get deleted anyway, but ya never know. NawlinWiki 16:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Gunmund Hernes

I suggest that before you go around accusing serious editors of vandalism, you read what Wikipedia:Vandalism says about it ("While having large chunks of text you've written deleted, moved to the talk page, or substantially rewritten can sometimes feel like vandalism, it should not be confused with vandalism.") Perhaps I could also direct your attention to Wikipedia:Assume good faith? Truth is though, even with all the good faith in the world, I couldn't really take this edit seriously. The preponderance of silly and useless categories is just reaching staggering proportions. Of course, if you had been more concerned with creating better articles than with clogging them up with useless categories, one click would have taken you to the Norwegian page, where you wouldn't have to be a linguist to decipher: "fødd 25. mars 1941 i Trondheim".

But hey, I've created articles on every Norwegian government ministers since 1814 - about 4-500 of them - and hardly any of them have anything but year of birth and death. If this is what you like to do, then knock yourself out. Eixo 15:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I respect your opinion, I just don't like being called a vandal. Has the implementation of this category been discussed at all, though? There seems to be no clear policy on where to use it. In an article such as Jane Johnson (c. 1813-1872) it is meaningless; she was a slave, we're not even sure what year she was born, we'll certainly never know the date. The same is the case with most people born before the modern period, like Amr ibn Hishām. Here the category serves no purpose at all, because the information simply doesn't exsist. Including it won't prompt any useful editing, it will only stand as a reminder of the article's inadequacy for ever and ever and ever. If I've created a good biographical article, incorporating all available modern scholarship, I certainly don't want that scar on it. It is iportant to distinguish between information that is missing and that which is simply unavailable, and these issues must be adressed before any wide-scale implementation (we're talking of tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of articles here) is started.

I'll put this on the category talk page as well. Eixo 16:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fields of Anfield Road

Update: It's quoted on the Liverpool FC website so I will cite this as a source.

Hi, I've just spotted your banner about potentially merging this chant into the Liverpool F.C. article. The main problem with doing this is the main article is already over recommended size. Lots of far more important bits of information have already been moved into various sub-articles, so there is very little chance of people deciding to put this in. I didn't realise the chant's article existed, and now I do, I really don't see what the problem with it is. Plenty of songs have their own articles, and this song happens to be public domain, allowing us to list the entire lyrics. aLii 14:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Freak Accident

Hi Erechtheus, A7 is probably the most contentious of the speedy deletion criteria. Speedy deletion was initially created just to eliminate obvious vandalism. Some administrators will not delete any article under A7. This article probably does fail WP:NMG and likely will be deleted, but if there is anything in an article that suggests even a shred of verifiability and notability, then I prefer that it goes through a non-speedy mechanism (prod or AfD). Hope this explains things. -- Samir धर्म 02:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Question

I used the helpme template to ask what I should do with an image in an article such as Frank Reynolds (artist). I'm not sure where that would be addressed in the FAQ. Erechtheus 02:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean 'what to do with it'. You mean orienting it on the page? Or is it a license problem? —Centrx→talk • 02:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean properly orienting it. As far as I know, there is no problem with the use of the image. Erechtheus 02:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have put it where I think it makes sense. See [1], specifically "|right". —Centrx→talk • 02:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to you. This is the first time I have dealt with anything about using an image effecitvely in an article. Seeing it done really helped me out. Erechtheus 02:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheri Samba

Hey, wow, neat! I categorize articles every day but somehow never knew about the missing place/year of birth categories. Very useful.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. In fact, I may use the categories just for that purpose. I imagine a simple Google search, at least for birth dates—something like ""first name last name" "date of birth""—would quickly find the required information for many bio articles.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding to my stub on The Carlton Hotel

I just wanted to drop a quick thank you for helping clean up The Carlton Hotel. It is always good to see little gnomes helping clean up after some of the more sloppy (not me of course!) user. Thanks again.--Saintlink 07:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Alpha kappa nu and other frat

I thought it could be removed at my discretion as directed. They are longer than a few sentences and provide a healthy number of references. I'm alright with the stub status.

thank you, i'm trying my best. these two groups have history that is buried pretty far, so it's hard to research them. NinjaNubian 08:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Grabau

Thanks for your kind words. I appreciated your reading and giving attention to the article. I thought that there might have been a decade category for deaths, like deaths in the 1870s or something like that, so when I saw that there were no such categories, I changed it. It is a pleasure when Wikipedians dwell and work together in unity.--Drboisclair 19:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Coal Strike of 1902

Hi Erechtheus. Thank you for taking the time to reviewing this article, your detailed input will be especially help. Hopefully in the future we'll get this to GA status. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 01:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for wikifying shankar(cartoonist)'s page. thanks for edit help Nileena joseph 10:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Edit Summeries

That was a mistake on my part, I forgot to put something in the edit summery. TJ Spyke 01:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are edit summaries a requirment for adminship, or do they just help your chances?--KojiDude ^(viva la ^BAM!) 01:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. (This edit summary thing is gonna take some getting used to...)--KojiDude ^(viva la ^BAM!) 01:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Philip Colfox

Sorry, this is my fault for not reading the edit summary (or the whole article). My first reaction to the OR tag was that you thought the whole article was fictional, when this is not the case (i.e. the existence of Colfox and his position as an MP are verifiable), but your tag obviously applied to later parts in the article. Feel free to reinstate the tag. --New Progressive 20:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Virginia WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the state of Virginia.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every Virginia article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 01:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia September 2006 Newsletter

The September 2006 issue of the Virginia WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 02:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fix on HOAJs

I appreciate your help-- if you're interested in the general topic, let me know, because I will be writing/editing a few more. DGG 02:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Zacto Systems Philippines

Hi, Erechtheus. I reported Zacto Systems Philippines to Wikipedia:Copyright problems rather than deleting it since it is not from a commercial content provider (CCP), which is a company that makes money directly from the content that has been copied. The company must be a CCP to qualify for speedy deletion under A8. Basically, a company has to be a newspaper/news site, magazine, encyclopedia or something similar for it to qualify as a CCP. The company must be selling add space or charging a subscription to view the content. Advertisements, promotional content and "about us"/"company history" content do not count, since paying to see them and having them be supported by ads is very unusual. If the content is used without permission, they still count as copyright violations, of course. Many admins do not know about, do not understand or just ignore the CCP provision, but I do not. However, good work on catching the copyright violation. Thanks, Kjkolb 09:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion to see if there was any changes and on the talk page to see if there was a discussion about it. I found that the CCP requirement was removed last week without my noticing (it is on my watchlist), so you are correct. I had argued for its removal several times before, but we never had a consensus. It will make things easier from now on, although I wish that all potential copyvios that clearly postdate the originals could be deleted, not just those less than 48 hours old. Also, 48 hours is extremely conservative in regards to mirrors. A week or two would be more realistic. Anyway, I deleted the article. Sorry for the mistake. Talk to you later, Kjkolb 11:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baronets

You are invited to join Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baronetcies. - Kittybrewster 11:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I must decline at present, but I wish you luck in this project. Erechtheus 18:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serie A

I'm after adding a link to the Lega Calcio website (Offical Italian League website) showing the fixtures for future serie a games which backs up the information on the page, therefore I removed the citation template. Just wondering what is fully required for describing what the page is about. As it stands, that page is essentially a sub page of the main 2006/2007 Serie A article and as such, doesn't really need much explanation. I've improved the explanation a bit and really there isn't much more to be said. I've left the other template on the page for removal on your discretion. Thanks. Niall123 11:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afd

Feel free to withdraw, though I suggest that you wait until the AfD closes so that it can gather more community consensus, as it's always possible that someone can come up with a better idea.--TBCTaLk?!? 06:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hanover Courthouse

I was just through there yesterday and noticed the signs in and out of town read "Hanover Courthouse". While most people refer to it as Hanover or write Hanover on their addresses, the community still retains its original name. The actual Hanover Courthouse is beautiful, it's definitely worth a stop everytime ;) --Caponer 15:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MacDade Mall incident

Hi there, I just wanted to say that, in relation to my (admittedly out of process in that context) remarks on the deletion review regarding that Admin you had an issue with, you will have my support for any Request for Comment or other similar procedure you might consider initiating. I understand that admins, like anyone, can have bad weeks, but I do see them as having quasi-"public official/servant" status on Wikipedia, and I don't think its acceptable to brusquely ignore official processes such as afd policies and deletion review at their personal whim. Bwithh 23:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Lonsdale

FYI - this article has been renominated per WP:BIO. Rklawton 01:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril Lord

Cyril Lord was an entrepreneur who went spectasularly bust during the 1960s in Northern Irelnd. His career there was very similar to that of De Lorean a few years later. He came in for coverage in Private Eye in its early years. The material is there for a proper article, it is a question of assembling it within the strictures about original research, I will do this in the next couple of days. The Private Eye article needs adjustment in several areas, this is one, but it is better to do the additional articles first. Guy 06:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaston Geens

I deleted the category "Place of birth missing" as it is mentioned in the article "Kersbeek-Miskom" (Which is by the way a part of Kortenaken) --Donar Reiskoffer 09:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Syd Thrift

Hey, thanks. We're all here to do the same thing, right? As for beating you to the submission, that's probably just a sign that I have too much time on my hands! Dppowell 20:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Emile Henry Lacombe

I saw that you added the "unsourced" template to the stub I created for Emile Henry Lacombe. The basic data are taken from the Federal Judicial Center's biographical directory available online, which is a public domain resource. Eventually, there should be an article on every federal judge, particularly appellate judges, and this was meant as a starting point. I believe there is a template reflecting information derived from the FJC directory, but I'm not quickly finding it. Do you happen to know what it is? If not, I will poke around for it tomorrow. In the meantime, thanks for noticing the article, such as it is. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I've been here about three months now, and I understand exactly what the "unsourced" template is for, so no need to worry about that. The prior time a longer article I wrote (Peter J. Hamilton) was tagged as unsourced, the tag actually pushed me to get the sources listed, so it did a service. What I am not sure of is whether it's necessary to include an "unsourced" tag when the author has tagged his own article as a stub, because part of the definition of a stub is that stubs typically don't have sources yet. But of course, ultimately the goal is to have real articles about these people, not just dates of service and the like, as in Martin Manton and Richard J. Daronco and Harrie B. Chase, so any tags that will push me (and other parallel contributors) to get there are probably a good thing. Newyorkbrad 00:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having poked around some more, I think what I was thinking of was probably a "public domain source" template or something of that nature. Cf. the "bioguide" template for members of Congress, which produces: " This article incorporates public domain material from the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress" Maybe I should generate a similar one for the Judicial Directory. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled entry

Hey Erechtheus, your answer on Kuntayithote talk page[[2]] answered my concern. Thank you. I have a question. Can a user edit another user's page (not talk page) and is it considered proper? Somebody edited my userpage and I don't know how I should deal with that. Kuntan 07:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erechtheus, thanks again for your effort.Kuntan 07:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Hey Erechtheus, thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It finished with an amazing final tally of 160/4/1. I really appreciate your support. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Please help

Hello Erechtheus, Please do something about Nair article. Casteist users are keeping on vandalising it by removing its contents. I am not familiar with the templates. Although I have asked for vigilance on the relevant discussion board [[3]] none has paid attention. Kuntan 16:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The revert on my userpage came on second thoughts following your suggestion that the user who put the graphic there might be helping me and also following my making peace with him. I was no way disregarding the help you extended. And I wish to seek your help in the future also, if you wouldn't mind. I am thankful to you for your suggestions. I think a mediation or abuse reporting would be required in the case of the article Nair. Some users are indulging in vandalism out of casteist prejudice. Regards. Kuntan 20:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assyst (or however it's spelt)

Not a problem. Easy mistake to make, and it's now been deleted. Oh, and I don't normally bother with that nothanks template. That's just me though. -- Steel 19:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Christ's Church Cathedral, Hamilton, Ontario

A propos of your deletion notice on the basis that this is a non-notable church location, in fact this is part of a series on Anglican cathedrals in Canada. There is substantially more information to be added in due course, but the article does not merit deletion. Thanks. Masalai 08:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Little by little over the next few days now that the longstanding redlink has been filled in a little. It is, after all, the cathedral church of an important diocese; it may well be the oldest extant Anglican cathedral in pre-1949 (when Newfoundland entered Confederation) Canada. What, in particular, is your concern? Surely there are ample other such pages that are considerably less significant.Masalai 08:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erechtheus, it's a bit much to suggest I've fallen afoul of WP:AGF simply because I don't share your own idiosyncratic interpretation of it, especially when you are doing so as a rhetorical exercise. We both voted "Keep" (in your case, having changed from a Delete vote); why are we having this argument? Why vote one way and then leave a string of "comments" to the opposite effect? Carolynparrishfan 18:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Newinn

Carol Newinn bio was just introduced on wikipedia by me, please give it some time to gather information before requesting it to be deleted. Did you bother to read the articles that I presented ?

• Cheerleader Carol Newinn: Raising the Spirits of the Houston Texans
• BN Magazine Up-close

Bnguyen 16:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Amos

I think that there might be a misunderstanding. I did not create the Damon Amos article - I tried to nominate it for deletion. I did not remove any tags from the article. I hope this clears things up. Best regards. Verkhovensky 01:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks a lot for your speedy reply.

Verkhovensky 01:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Killin Railway Sources

Sources now added to the articles for the Callander and Oban Railway and Killin Railway. Also the stations at Killin Junction, Killin and Loch Tay. --Stewart 12:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Album Citations

Well if you're going to use the citation on Neil Finn's albums you may as well start adding them to the other hundreds of thousands of albums on the wikipedia that are unsourced but exist. I'm not citing an actual CD that I own but if it's a citation you want how about checking the bloody history on Neil Finn's page before I changed the format of the discography. Or possibly google the albums and then add them yourself. Or would that be too hard?

Originalsinner 18:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the tone. Not really a morning person (I've just woken up since NZ is in morning mode and it being 7am). Just never had to cite an album before and well the wikipedia is starting to get tediously anal (no offense - I've just had a wikicomics major run-in).

Originalsinner 19:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess I better be truthful then... I don't own the CD's per se, my flatmate does (his taste in music is crappy in my opinion but then again I'm sure he'll say the same about mine.) I think someone else will source Neil Finn's albums for me. He's... "much loved" in NZ, Australia, the UK and most of Europe so I'm sure that'll be done shortly-ish. My run-in with the wikicomics is also what caused my pissy response. I've decided to stick to the music side of the project now because the comic-base is waaaaaaaaaay too dictatorial. Originalsinner 19:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Williams

The article was simply unsuitable for a prod. It makes an assertion of notability. The reference should either have been removed or it should have gone through AfD. JASpencer 22:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

remove prod

Okay. For some reason, I was under the impression that anyone could remove the notice -except- for the person who originated the article. Now, that I look, however, I guess it doesn't say that anywhere. It seems I've been doing a lot wrong lately; stuff that wouldn't have been wrong a couple of years ago. I was inactive as an editor for awile, and have only recently picked it back up, I suppose I should read all the new guidelines... :) CB Droege 15:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(comment from user page moved here)

Thanks for adding the stub stuff to Cornish Colony Museum. I didn't know how to do that. --Tygerbryght 06:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Dawe

Thanks for contributing to the Tom Dawe article... it's great to see another Wikipedia user with an interest in Newfoundland poets. As far as I can tell, though, The Madonna is a poem from Hemlock Cove and After. The Bibliography is for listing books, not individual poems, so I removed it. See this page. Killick 11:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

From The User Page Of Indie Bones

I am the one who created the page The Parent Trap II and added the 'unsucessful' Infobox. I am a relative newcomer and don't know much complicated templates so I copied the template for the film infobox from The Parent Trap. Please could somebody add an infobox for it and the other Parent Trap pages I have created; The Parent Trap 3, The Parent Trap: Hawaiian Honeymoon, The Parent Trap Series and The Twins (The Parent Trap). Indie.Bones 09:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Indie Bones[reply]

Thanks for the confidence boost. Also thanks 4 repliing so quickly. Indie.Bones 09:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Indie Bones[reply]

Sources for University of Richmond School of Law, Southwest Virginia Community College, and Playmania

Hey Erechtheus, I was just looking through your contributions, trying to figure out if you were a bot or not. I read your early postings (glad to hear you are human) and noticed, (because it was on my mind) that they had few or no sources, so I added the template. Southwest Virginia Community College has no sources at all. University of Richmond School of Law has only one, but nothing for its founding date or population. Now that you mention it, the external links probably do contain the information. Does that count? Wikipedia:Citing sources doesn't mention it as a legitimate citation style. Thanks for your help. -- TheMightyQuill 16:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the proper way to do it

Hi ,

You have thankfully visited and commented on my newly made list Spiders_in_Israel_palestine. I have made this list and few others to be part of the article Biodiversity in Israel Palestine, and not as articles per se. Is what I did the proper way of making lists? or should I do it a different way.

There is no way I can expand these lists. the info in them is just this info as lists.

Plz ur comments --Thameen 00:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coalition of the stupid

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. Erechtheus 06:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to assume good faith when I've systematically seen anything contrary to our alliance of nations or depicting it in anything but POV light immediately AFD'd (and I mean immediately, the second anything, no matter how well known or used (for the record, it's the most common phrase expounded in conversations when on the subject I've encountered), it's nerfed or outright removed).

So please forgive my initial skepticism, but without a doubt, the AFD will be one sided as only those motivated to nerf or remove it would be bothered to add their two cents. Bit problematic as far as censorship goes which is why I'm standing behind it so strongly. Jachin 17:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC) (Syndicated to your talk page for your viewing pleasure.)[reply]

Gloucester

There is no problem with Junior level sports teams on Wikipedia -- it is junior level sports players, unless they will be the next Michael Jordan, that are notability issues... I have just started posting stats and am starting to build up histories for the article. If you want to see an example of how this stub process goes... please refer to the teams of the Alberta Junior Hockey League, British Columbia Hockey League, or Ontario Provincial Junior A Hockey League. They are concurrent with OLA Junior B in Lacrosse. Junior A and B lacrosse teams are the direct feeder system for Professional Lacrosse and are notable... I am just starting these articles...

Also, there was no hostility in my actions, please Assume Good Faith. DMighton 05:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, for the past three hours... I've been adding histories to Lacrosse teams. Sadly, I do have a huge workload... I am in the process of calculating statistics for a lot of very old teams... and trying to put together quasi-decent histories to start articles with... sadly, I must admit, they do look rather skimpy at first... I guess I should add Canadian Sports Stub markers or something to the pages I haven't enhanced yet. DMighton 05:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R.e: Your message

A quick check of the history of the Emperor Wenxuan of Northern Qi article shows that I am not *the original* author of the article - therefore your message is unfounded. Would you kindly strike out your comment on my talk page? Thanks and happy editing! Suzy64 19:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quote from the speedy tag itself: ...do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. So the warning you gave me is incorrect. Any Wikipedian is well within his or her rights to remove speedy tags from articles if they do not agree with the reason given. As long as you did not create the article in question yourself. Suzy64 19:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Place of birth 'missing' on Russell Dunham

Re: [4]. The place was already on the infobox. I've reverted your addition. --Durin 20:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

WHA Junior West Hockey League

I have made some improvements to the site listed above and feel that the template that you put there should be removed. If there is anything else that I need to do let me know. Thanks John R G 17:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gerardus Mooyman

I wrote the article according to an interview with Mooyman as for his importance, he was the first non-German who won the Knight's Cross and was widely used by the German propoganda, hence he is well known (there also an article about him in the Dutch wikipedia).Ingsoc 22:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

bio templates

Hi Erechtheus, I see you're adding bio templates to talk pages of articles that I created today. Can I be of any help whatsoever? As you can see on my user page I also have some sort of a project running, however it's mainly just something I use myself. SportsAddicted 21:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No really, don't get me wrong, I was just wondering wether I could help you with this or not. I mean, when I create a bio article like the ones you came through today, can I add the template myself? So if you miss the articles for some reason they're still in your biography project. I'm asking this because I also created articles the last few weeks which haven't been added to your project yet. Actually I'm aware of this project only today. For instance the article about Marianne Vos hasn't been added yet. SportsAddicted 23:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got it now, I've been reading there in the past, but didn't check out the template. Doesn't look too difficult, specially when creating the articles yourself. SportsAddicted 02:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veerapandi, Theni

The source for the town article is Census India. It is cited in the Demographics section. The reference was placed in the geographic references page so that it need not be repeated in thousands of articles. This is what Rambot did with US towns too. Coudl you please remove the sources tag? Please let me know if you have any questions. - Ganeshk (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The town is being recognized by the Census of India, a department of Government of India. That was source for the geographic location too. Since the census data contained the district name, state name etc. So I am not sure what you want for a source? - Ganeshk (talk) 05:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Happy editing to you too. - Ganeshk (talk) 05:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your placement of notability tags...

Could you please explain your placement of the {notability} tag on Fadil Husayn Salih Hintif and Mehrabanb Fazrollah more fully?

I am not familiar with this particular tag. Is it a new one?

I spent my first year on the wikipedia writing mainly on non-controversial topics. And I didn't find that involved me in any serious disputes. I spent my second year on the wikipedia writing mainly on topics related to the "war on terror". Controversial topics.

At first I found that I was triggering other contributors to challenge my contributions - on the grounds that I was showing a bias. Infrequently they were correct. I aim for an NPOV, but I don't think anyone succeeds 100% of the time. And I welcome when a civil correspondent helps me fix the occasional lapse. But most of the time it was due to a simple misunderstanding, or my correspondents were, innocently, mounting a challenge that illustrated their bias.

I responded with a civil inquiry every time someone said they thought something I had written showed bias, or when they put an {npov} tag on it. I found that, generally, most people who said something felt biased to them, or put an {npov} tag, could not be specific about which passages they thought showed bias. So, I felt it was safe for me to assume that they either found whatever explanation I offered was sufficient. Or they found they could not point to a specific passage.

I am afraid that a minor fraction of the challenges I received were from contributors who were not interested in improving the wikipedia, merely to censoring instances of material that they thought made the USA look bad. One contributor, an administrator no less, expressed the view, in an {afd}, that ANY article about a Guantanamo detainee was inherently anti-American. In other words, the topic itself was inherently biased.

Well, anyhow, either I have learned to avoid innocently leaving triggers that give readers the false impression my writing is biased, or I am being more careful. I rarely get challenges over bias. And I don't think I have had a serious one in at least six months.

What I am getting is challenges over notability. And what I am afraid is that I am left with the impression that some of those challenges are coming from people who just don't want to see material that they think reflects poorly on the USA covered on the wikipedia, and I have done such a good job in referencing my contributions from authoritative, verifiable sources, without straying from a neutral point of view, that they have to fall back to challenges over notability.

I strongly disagree with using notability as a criteria for deletion. Notability is far too subjective. It is inherently vulnerable to systematic bias. It is not an official wikipedia policy. It is merely a guideline that reflects some people's opinion. I regard WP:BIO as a tool that helps some people decide whether an article deserves closer scrutiny to see whether it violates WP:VER, WP:NPOV or WP:NOR. WP:VER, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR are official policies.

Americans are disproportionately represented on the wikipedia. And this exerts an unconscious systematic bias on the wikipedia, that we are all supposed to be keeping in mind, and doing our best to combat. Please conduct a thought experiment. Please imagine that there was another country that had rounded up some American citizens, and was holding them without laying any charges against them, claiming they could hold them indefinitely, claiming the Geneva Conventions didn't apply to them. Imagine there was strong circumstantial evidence that this other nation was humiliating, abusing, and, in some cases, torturing those American prisoners. Can you imagine that anyone would consider, for one second, challenging the notability of those prisoners?

If you played any role in the drafting of the notability tag I would encourage you to scale back its official sounding tone. Notability is not an official wikipedia policy. And, IMO, it is too subjective for it to become a useful policy. Your tag should not imply that it is official policy to remove articles based on notability when it is not an official policy.

For the record I think these two individuals are notable for a number of reasons:

• They are both victims of serious violations of the Geneva Conventions. Article five of the Third Geneva Convention obliges a captor to extend all the protections of the Geneva Conventions to all captives, unless a "competent tribunal" has determined they don't qualify for those protections. AR-190 lays out how the US military is supposed to conduct those competent tribunals. They have held most of those guys for almost five years, and they still haven't convened a single competent tribunal.
• How close a look did you take at the allegations against these two men? The Bush administration routinely described the Guantanamo detainees as "The worst of the worst". Up until the release of the transcripts this March the public didn't have any good ways to come to an informed opinion as to the credibility of this claim. Now that the documents have been been released we can come to an informed opinion. When examined, in detail, the allegations bear out the conclusions of the Denbeaux study. When examined in detail the allegations against the detainees do not substantiate the claims of Bush administration. Admiral Harry Harris, the current camp commandant, claims there are no innocent men held in Guantanamo. My personal conclusion is that far less than half the detainees who went through their Combatant Status Review Tribunals should have been stripped of the protections of the Geneva Conventions, following a proper "competent tribunal". The US military did convene competent tribunals following the first Gulf War. They considered the cases of something like 1200 captives. 70% were classified as innocent civilians. The other 30% were classified as POWs. None of them were stripped of the protections of the Geneva Convention.
• Did you see that one of the justifications for continuing to detain Fadil Husayn Salih Hintif was he was captured wearing a Casio digital watch? A number of newspaper articles have been published about the men who were being held, at least in part, because they were wearing a casio digital watch. It is a highly controversial justification. IMO it is controversial enough it should be reported in detail. The allegations state that the detainees were wearing a particular model of casio, the Casio F91W. But, clearly, at least four of those guys were wearing different models. At least two of them were wearing the much more expensive Casio Prayer Watch. At least another two were captured wearing models that incorporated a calculator.

My guess is that those who do not regard articles about the Guantanamo detainees as notable don't recognize that there are any controversies surrounding the prison's conditions, the failure of the Bush administration to comply with the Geneva Conventions, the nature of their interrogation, force-feeding, detention without a chance to learn or refute the evidence against them. IMO that shows their bias, not mine. Without regard to whether one subscribes to the Bush administration's interpretation, or one subscribes to another interpretation, that there are controversies is undeniable. I wouldn't work on these articles if there were no controversies.

But there are controversies. And the public deserves a chance to use the wikipedia to learn the details for themselves.

I see from your user page, you are a lawyer. How much time have you spent looking into the legal aspects of the cases of the Guantanamo detainees? So, are you a Clarence Darrow kind of lawyer, or a Johnny Cochrane kind of lawyer? That is a personal question, you don't have to answer that. But I urge you to read some of the transcripts for yourself. You might try starting with Fouad Al Rabia's

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 16:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nawab of the Carnatic

Hi. This page is not about a single person. It is about the Nawabdom (kingdom). I'm not sure WPBiography would apply to this article - Parthi ^talk/contribs 20:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Denise Vasi

Well, I'm a deletionist. But, I noted that it was not a vanity article, just a poorly written article about what the author considered a notable model. I don't believe in frightening new users away, so I suggested an AfD. No problems if it was voted speedy delete. utcursch | talk 06:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

General strike/Summary merge

Hi Erechtheus. I removed your merge tag from the General strike/Summary article. The article is intended as a brief summary of the main General strike article, and is being used by the Summaries project at the WikiProject Organized Labour. Cheers. --Bookandcoffee 09:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're ready for a RFC yet! Give us a bit of time to tinker around with it. Your comments would be welcome on the talk page. It's a very small project right now, with only 5 articles using the format. The biggest thrust is to try and establish a useful setup for translating articles into other languages. Did you check out the connecting page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour/Internationalisation?

I'm not sure how to respond to your concerns. NPOV doesn't really seem like an issue here, and although there is a bit of a possibility of lag from the main article, they are connected by the {{Article summary}} on each main page, so they're not going to drift too far apart either figuratively or literally. In any case, let us know what you think. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 10:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for your patience. I just wanted to say that I appreciate your willingness to look at this idea. I'm not trying to push your questions away to "get my own way". You bring up a good point about the possibility of a POV fork. Our other choice is to create the summaries on the internationalisation page, but then they are completely static and away from the view of other editors. I'll start a conversation on the talk pages about this. Your idea of RFC is a good one as well - it's just that new ideas are sometimes difficult to nurture in this environment, and I'd like to get as many of our ducks in a row as possible before generating too much attention. --Bookandcoffee 16:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting that info on the page. I'll wait a day or two before putting my comments up - so others have a chance to think about it without my opinion. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 21:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

You added a notability tag to Tomato Head Records a small while back and since I removed it (after a fair bit of editing) I was wondering if you thought that it now was okay. Thanks. Dark jedi requiem 00:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do see where your coming from. I believe though that there should be notability guidelines for independent lables though. Some, like Fat Wreck Chords have not:

"...been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself."

nor are they:

"...listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications."

and lastly they don't meet:

"The company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate stock market indices."

But overall all they are one the bigger, better known indie lables releasing albums for some of the bigger bands like NOFX, Rancid, Anti-Flag ect.

I think the same can be said of Tomato Head Records. They do not pass any of the criteria although it was made by a notable person, from a notable band and released music by notable musicians like Tsunami Bomb, and Link 80. Obviously some are too small, some are growing, midsized or larger and with no notability guide it's leaving a lot of gray area for editors to interpret. Tell me if that makes sense, needs clarifying or maybe if you completely disagree. Thanks, Dark jedi requiem 17:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Air Lines Flight 212 - Gyro Tower

Hi Erechtheus, I am aware of the NTSB description of that tower. But according to the Gyro Tower article, the platform needs to rotate around the tower, not just go up and down, yet the NTSB fails to mention any rotation. I found the Gyro Tower entry on the Internet but could not confirm that Caroway got the 'Gyro', i.e. rotating, version by 1974. I got this far and I was doing a million things at the time, so I was hoping the edit summary would catch your attention. Sorry if it somehow offended you - that certainly was not my intention. I generally dislike ^[citation needed] templates because they are slower to work, require more effort, and Jimbo hates them. Anyway, we are still missing the reference for the 'gyro' wikilink - please let me know where it stands. Thanks, Crum375 18:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erechtheus, please bear with me - I may be blind. I do see that the tower was installed in 1973, which is good, but where does it say that it rotates? I thought, per Gyro Tower, that rotation is a key feature of a 'Gyro' tower. Sorry for being a stickler, but I like articles to be correct. And if the answer is obvious and I am just missing it, then I apologize in advance. Thanks, Crum375 18:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if I sound like WP:OWN, I can see it would seem that way, since I wrote that article from scratch. But in fact I would love to have people contribute to and edit 'my' articles, as long as they bring in well sourced factual data. In this case, you have provided 3 references so far, and I have yet to see in any of them, where exactly it says that the Carowinds Tower, in 1974 (or even today), was actually able to rotate. Not vertical motion, that's well known and in the NTSB report, but rotational motion, to qualify as a Gyro Tower per WP's definition. If the statement about a rotational motion is there, and I am just missing it, please point me to it (or quote it).

Now your second reference does use the word 'Gyro' but when I go to the actual Carowinds site, which to me would be more reliable, I see this reference about the Stunt Tower made by the Swiss company Intamin AG and installed in 1996, and apparently not the Gyro rotating version. I also see this reference about the 'Carolina Skytower', which I think is the 'observation tower' mentioned in the NTSB report, also made by Intamin, and it also does not say there that it rotates.

I could easily be wrong of course, I am far from an expert in observation towers or stunt towers. If you know more about this area, let me ask you: have you been to that specific park? Have you seen the tall observation tower? Does it rotate? Did it rotate in 1974? Not that your answers would be directly usable in the article, but at least then I can start a more serious effort (perhaps contacting the park directly for info).

BTW, if you do see anything else on that article that you feel is unsourced or improperly sourced, please point it out and I'll either eject it or fix it. Thanks, Crum375 21:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I found a link that may be OK for this non-controversial issue. I doubt it will get challenged. Sorry to be a stickler for the rules, but I feel better knowing we don't just let things slide. Crum375 23:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A. P. Hill rating

Hi, you recently rated the article and I was wondering if you could fill out the subpage Talk:A. P. Hill/Comments in order to let me know what needs to be done in order to better the article and to bring it to a better state (as Start-class is a bit low for such an article IMO). Lincher 11:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

USSR at the 1960 Summer Olympics and USSR at the 1968 Summer Olympics

Hello, I noticed you added {{sources}} to these pages. The only information on those stub articles was taken directly from the articles linked from these stubs (e.g. medal count page, main page for the specific Games, etc.) and those pages have identified the appropriate references. I am not completely clear on Wikipedia convention here - for example, is it really necessary to copy the source of the medal count information to every page that uses it? I had thought that linking to the page would be sufficient. Thanks, Andrwsc 16:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply. I will be making lots of new stub articles for redlinked "Nation at the year Olympics" articles, so I will add a couple of standard reference links to each one (e.g. official report of the Games, and link to IOC web site). Andrwsc 16:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taichung International Standard Baseball Stadium Page

I made a couple of notes on the talk page in response to the tags that were given. I haven't seen anything online yet about the stadium (in English or in Chinese,) but have given the print references for the information.

Could you show me how to "categorize" the page?

Thank you.

Note - please respond to my talk page. Thanks Ludahai 05:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me why you still have the stub tag on this page? There really isn't any more information available on it at this point in time.

Ludahai 05:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Virginia Newsletter October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Virginia WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 03:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Vandalisim?!?!!?!

Mind telling me what the heck I vandalised???? Armanalp 20:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

responded to you.. Armanalp 20:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

You have mail

You have a reply waiting for you at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin coaching  The Transhumanist   18:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Rawi Hage and Category:People from Beirut

I've now created Category:People from Beirut, but for future reference, please note that Wikipedia explicitly prohibits adding nonexistent categories to an article. If a category doesn't already exist, your only two options are to (a) leave it off, or (b) immediately create it yourself. You cannot leave a red category link sitting on an article. Bearcat 06:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categorization Bearcat 07:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Judges articles

If you recall a discussion we had a month or so ago, you might be interested in taking a look here. Please let me know what you think. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 22:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Rena Sayers

I would like to ask why that page is marked for citations, when none of the others in the My-Otome category ("Category : My - Otome", remove spaces and quotes) are. --Warp L. Obscura 12:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

re: Category:Date of birth missing

Good evening. Per the discussion about privacy concerns expressed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of birthdays, date of birth should generally not be added to the biographies of living non-public or semi-public figures. So far, that policy has been interpreted fairly strictly with a pretty high bar being set for the definition of "public figures" who are assumed to have given up their rights to privacy.

By the same token, we should not be adding Category:Date of birth missing to articles unless we have made the case that the person meets the "public figures" threshold. Otherwise, we're just baiting new users into adding content even though the community has already said that we shouldn't include that particular data point. Category:Year of birth missing is okay but the exact date is often not. Thanks for your help. Rossami (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin coaching, etc.

Are you ready to get started?

The waiting time over at Admin coaching is long (some people have been waiting in line since July). I'm an admin coach with the project, and for my students I set up a group discussion page so that we could all learn from each other. The scope of this concept has expanded into the Virtual classroom, which is an open forum for the teaching and learning of advanced Wikipedia skills.

Anyone and everyone is welcome to participate, as a student, as a coach, or both. Every week or two a new major topic of discussion or classroom assignment is introduced, usually with a guest writer who presents his or her expertise on the current subject and who remains on hand to answer questions. Everyone is encouraged to participate in the discussions, such as sharing your expertise, asking and answering questions, etc.

The current topic of discussion is vandalism, and our guest writer is Budgiekiller.

All discussions are open-ended, so all previous discussion topics and classroom assignments are still there for viewing and further participation. There are also sections for posting miscellaneous topics and questions, requesting coaching assistance, etc.

In addition to inviting those who would like to learn, I routinely invite experts from all over Wikipedia to come and contribute for the benefit of all. The VC is rapidly turning into a clearing house of the best resources, methods, and techniques known for working on Wikipedia.

You are cordially invited to participate.

Here's an announcement box which you can place on your userpage or at the top of your talk page for keeping up to date with classroom assignments.

I hope to see you there. Sincerely,  The Transhumanist    07:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Paramount's Kings Dominion

Hi Erechtheus, I noticed that in October you classified this article as start-class based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Virginia's quality scale. I just wanted to let you know that I'm working on expanding it further and am in the process of converting the simple attraction lists into a longer history of each section of the park with a brief summary of each ride. You may want to take a look at this article again and give it a further review based on the quality scale. Please also offer any suggestions for improving it that you may have. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 04:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

WP:FILMS Newsletter

The December 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Cbrown1023 00:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Your game show panelist categories are at CfD

Several, probably all, of the panelist categories you created are being discussed in CfD --Hjal 20:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aoife Mulholland

Thanks for posting about the speedy on my talk page. I've discussed the article there. Just wanted to say here 'thanks for the trouble you take to watch for such pages, and the extra trouble to tell the creator when you do so.Obina 00:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

MacDade Mall

Hey, thanks for the message about this. Just to be clear - I'm not an admin (though trialsanderrors is). Maybe tag this article for speedy delete due to restoral of deleted content? I dunno with an admin doing the out of process restoral - lets see what trials says. I'll keep an eye on what happens Bwithh 18:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Killer Dana Surf Shop

In a follow-up to your note on Talk:Killer Dana Surf Shop, I have listed Killer Dana Surf Shop for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killer Dana Surf Shop. --Bejnar 07:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

use of wiki maintenance tags??

Back in October 2006 you applied two wiki maintenance tags.

Instantiations of these tags expand and tell readers to go to the associated talk page to read the discussion as to why the tags were installed.

In my opinion the person who places the tag is the person who should initiate the dialog on the talk page. The rest of us aren't mind readers. If the person who places the tag doesn't sxplain, more fully, why they placed the tag, then the rest of us are left to guess why they placed the tag. We will never know for sure when they would think the concern has been satisfied.

When you place tags, would you consider explaining yourself on the associated talk pages?

FWIW I agree with the wikipedian who removed your notability tag.

I remove tags that remain unexplained, when the person who places them doesn't respond to a heads-up like this one after a reasonable period of time.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 04:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Jörgensen

I wrote almost all of the Jörgen Jörgensen article. Jörgensen contacted me on another community and threatened to sue for slander, and I didn't want to take any chances with that. I can't answer for the redirect, because I didn't do that. But "Ø" is just another version of "Ö", so it's technically correct. If someone wants to rewrite the Jörgensen article with their own words and sources, that's okay by me. But please keep me and my words out of it. - Duribald 20:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I couldn't revert to the previous version, since this was an advertisment for Jörgensen and his style. But the article was unsourced anyway, and you are free to remove unsourced statements from Wikipedia, so I did. - Duribald 22:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This solution is acceptable to me. _ Duribald 22:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Mask of Apollo

Hello Erechtheus. I see that you added a sources template last September to a stub which I composed about the novel The Mask of Apollo.

Are we certain that this is appropriate? The plot details are merely my recountling of an obscure but interesting book which deserves further attention, but perhaps without this tawdry cloud hanging over it. If any of my plot details are inaccurate, then they may be corrected easily.

It is established clearly that this is an historical novel, with an inherent blend of fact and fiction presumed. The sources for the historical characters referenced are, of course, linked within Wikipedia. Regards, Zenexp 03:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

You are still listed on the Admin coaching request page

Your name is still listed at Requests for an admin coach. If you are no longer looking for a coach, or you currently have one, please remove yourself from that list. Thank you. The Transhumanist   00:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching

Hey Erechtheus, I saw you on the massive backlog at Admin coaching, and I'd be glad to assist you in any questions you may have. Feel free to drop me a line on my talk page or shoot me an e-mail, whichever you prefer. Nice to meet ya, Mysekurity 03:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Newsletter - May 2007

The May 2007 issue of the Virginia WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.--Kubigula (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

List of people from North Omaha, Nebraska

Quick question about the sources tag you slapped on this article: Since almost every person listed has their own WP article, wouldn't it be unnecessarily redundant to insert specific citations for their listing on this list? I'm all for ease-of-use, but I also don't want to clutter up an article with citations if its not needed. Thoughts? - Freechild 02:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Alchemist Eve of the War

Your tagging of the article on the EP was very unhelpful as you didn't state what you wanted sourced. I am familiar with citing sources and of it's importance (I'm a student at uni). But just because you have not heard of the band or the EP before doesn't mean it is not well known locally or by the Metal music community generally. You're unspecific tagging is just unhelpful and shit-distributing. If you are afraid that there is a lack of reviews or availability of this EP in the USA feel free to write to Shock Records for their lack of promotion or not producing enough units --AusBruce 02:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Your attitude tells me you are in need of a break! Tagging articles just because you can't find much info on them from your country. Perhaps I should tag up an article on some relatively unresearchable aspect of Virginia from an Australian point of view. Oh oh I can't find a review on this or that in an Australian journal or database, therefore it mustn't exist or have happened!!!! (When surely it would have because I'm not stuck in a provincial mindset) Do you understand what I'm saying? It's your attitude that makes wikipedia drab and unenjoyable. So how about you go have a break, get over your fixation with that {{sources}} tag! --AusBruce 02:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No my point was that I will not go forth and tag an article local to you because I can't find a source local to me related to it. Understand? I've just read your talk page and you have several similar complaints about your tagging behaviour! You've got to try to understand that policy is not everything and that not every article will have an American source that can be referenced. In the end you'll drive many non-Americans away as they'll see wikipedia with too strong an American-centric focus, with a possible net result of a loss in outside knowledge (in other words SOURCES) leading to poorer quality articles. Think about it, overzealous tagging has the opposite effect, the project loses momentum! That's all I'm gonna say on your behaviour, any future taggings will have eyes rolled at and then ignored. I wish you luck --AusBruce 02:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Necropolis, Springvale

Not sure why you put a notability notice on this one. The references already indicate that this place is the subject of a publication entirely focussed on it. Sure, the article needs more development, and I'm sure it will be subject to that in time. Eyedubya 06:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Air Ivoire & Air Burkina

Not sure why you put a source notice on the pages I just created which was Air Burkina destinations and Air Ivoire destinations... but my sources are oag.com and the airline's official site, and we don't usually put references on the destination page for airline destinations we only say our sources when we insert a destination or remove one. -chris^_^ 04:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Erechteus - just noticed your comment about the above on WikiProject:Aviation. The issue is probably better posed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines instead. Cheers --Rlandmann 05:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best International Video By A Canadian (MMVA Award)

I've removed your speedy deletion suggestion for this article because it does provide context, although I do support including the content into the main MuchMusic Video Awards article as I can't see this ever taking the form of much more than a short list. Neil916 (Talk) 05:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Brain Gender

I also appreciate the work you do at Wiki. There is a major positive result for Wiki quality, and it is time consuming and thankless. It is unfortunate that your skill and efficiency provided an opportunity for a minor incident. From memory, you provided tags within 2 minutes of the opening edit. Even at that point there was reference to author, book title and the publisher -- Oxford University Press. As you made a polite recommendation to me, I make one to you. How welcoming is it to tag articles within 100 seconds of the first edit? Did you check the information that was already verifiable? OUP publications are not notable? How much citation is needed for one sentence? Really, my only advice is "relax", you are doing your job too well! I trust you take advice as freely as you offer it, we are on the same side. Cheers. Alastair Haines 07:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holidays! :D It is Winter here in Australia, cold but no snow. A good time for work ... and editing. Enjoy your weather along with your break. Alastair Haines 13:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to trouble you on your break. But Erechtheus was the traditional founder of Athens. The roots of law and democracy? Curious about your Wiki handle ... drop me a note sometime if you feel inclined. Cheers. Alastair Haines 03:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bombax buonopozense

Feel free to go ahead. I honestly and totally fail to see how this is an "appropriate" template. Circeus 03:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

World Trade Center Tower 5

I'm following the regular naming scheme for the site. All the other towers followed this until their official naming. World Trade Center Tower 5 is the official name for the placeholder of the unofficial JP Morgan Chase Tower which does not yet have an official name. The section in the 5 WTC article is outdated and the building will not be called 5 World Trade Center anyway. Besides there is plenty of info which I am adding right now along with sources. The PA NYNJ already made it official that this project will happen. I will remove the section in 5 WTC and merge it into the new article. JRWalko 02:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The page certainly needs work. There's several articles mentioning the building but they are scattered. It's a multi-day project but I'll get WikiProject NY City to contribute some more info.

Goon Show Preservation Society

Surely any organisation with Royal patronage is notable? References are in the article. Dbromage 03:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Oak Middle School

I am also dubious about the notability of middle and primary schools -- in fact I more often than note opt to delete high-school articles. My actions were almost entirely taken in an attempt to deal with what I see a a hughe amount of miss-use of A7 recently. Had this been taged with an A1 I would probably not have asked for its undeletion. I will probably convert it to a redirect when i have a chance, if it hasn't been significantly improved by then. DES ^(talk) 05:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Dilbert episode

However bad the article is, and however trivial the subject, I dont think that "The Security Guard (Dilbert episode)" can be said to have no context, simply because it didn't link to Dilbert or give the date. Looking at other such articles, some have been turned into redirects to the "List of Dilbert episodes", and this seems entirely reasonable to me. You might want to do that, once you've checked the date of this one & added it--that's just an editing change. Personally, I would support doing likewise to the others that still have separate articles unless a particular one has some real content. I'm a fan of Dilbert myself, but separate articles for this seems a little absurd, and the redirects would be in line with the developing consensus on episodes. Obviously, expect flak. DGG 14:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

the other tags for the rabbi

Of course. I hadn't forgotten, but I've seen stuff get deleted while I was in the act of editing the tag! You got there before me--in fact, I was going to use a prod to--well-- prod the author a little. We seem to work the same way. DGG 00:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sin City Irish RFC

I was under the impression that in the UK and wurope most team are formaly called "clubs" -- perhaps that is mistaken. For the mattr of that, i belive that US baseball major league teams are formmal "clubs", as a historical artifact, but they surely aren't clubs in the A7 sense. This one is borderlien it seems to me, and I don't know sports as well as some, so i prefer to err on the side of caution. Why not use a prod, if you think this ought to go? That takes no more effort than a speedy tag, or not much more. DES ^(talk) 21:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite probably right. But when ther is a serious "question in [your] mind [as to] what is meant in the article we're talking about" then IMO a speedy is a bad idea, and indeed AfD is probsbly the way to go. Or jsut wiat for improvemetn, and afd if none occurs after a reasoanble time. DES ^(talk) 22:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we're in violent agreement here. Good day and thanks. DES ^(talk) 22:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:2003 Boston Red Sox season

I see the sources now, but I didn't before. Sorry about that -- I guess I just scanned a little too quickly on that one. Erechtheus 18:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, at the time, I hadn't added any references yet. I just added them, so you were right to put the "sources" header at the top. jj137 18:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Toiling Midgets

Hello Erechtheus. Regarding the notability of the Midgets article (was it you who tagged it? I wasn't sure if it was you or 24.5.90.70), I added 2 quotes which I think do a good job of saying why they are notable. I also wrote in the talk page about other ways in which the band satisfies the guidelines for notability. Hopefully that will satisfy the issue. However, if you are still in need of more quotes/sources/notable things, please contact me/write on my talk page and I will do my best to amend the situation. Many thanks! Julian Maestas 04:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

"Are you familiar with WP:MUSIC? I don't think you're there at this point, but I think you're making a claim of notability (and therefore this isn't speedy deletion material). I'd suggest looking for reliable sources you can add that might establish one or more of the things listed in the notability guideline I linked above."

On the Talk:Toiling Midgets page I addressed most of the requirements for WP:MUSIC as you suggested; I thought this would be enough info; did you see the quote I added about how the Midgets were one of the first bands to experiment with dub and post-punk elements? I thought that generally the pioneers of something, the people breaking new ground, were notable. If this is till not what you're looking for, please be more precise in your next message so as I know exactly what to fix. Many thanks! Julian Maestas 17:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and p.s. not to be confrontational, but I am not a noob ("I don't think you're there at this point"), which you would have known if you had read my user info. I've been on Wikipedia since March of 2005. Julian Maestas 17:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be a dick

Don't act like I'm a newbie here. You're obviously very hopped up on self-importance so I won't waste any of your presumedly important time. I know the guidelines here, which is why I know you adding those template to that page is full of shit. If summarizing a primary source is original research, then the entire concept of research has no meaning. I used no original research, I made no claims that weren't stated by the author himself. For fuck's sake, it's only a summary of a book. If you keep disrupting my work, I will report you to an admin. Have a nice day. Kuralyov 16:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncat tags

Hi. It's very frustrating to work for ages on "previewed" edit source versions of articles, such as Gerald Ashby, which are often a 'wikification-in-progress'. Although you are not to know this, of course.

And when you have the edit source just right, you "Save page" - only to find an Edit conflict due to someone adding an uncat tag to an article which you are in the process of adding cats to. Although you are not to know this, of course.

No particular reason for bringing this up. I do often wonder, though, why editors don't get stuck in adding cats themselves (long job), rather than just adding uncat tags (short job). If you've any observations, I'd be interested. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to appear to be casting nasturtiums on your editing prowess - that wasn't the intention. As you may notice in the mentioned article history, I got confused during the 'edit save' process, and rolled back instead of expanding. Apologies (through frustration). Best wishes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I accidently deleted the templates you inserted into the Mod Kashin class destoryerarticle, also how do you change article names? I'm not sure if I created the misspelling or what though.

Sorry once more, I need help with a formatting question regarding a refrence I added that dosen't seem to appear under the heading for refrences. Lordevilvenom 01:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aldor (World of Warcraft)

I suppose that there are other readings but I read the word "real" in the phrase "real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content" to modify all of the nouns and noun clauses that follow. ("real person, real group of people, real band, real club, real company, or real web content"). Dsmdgold 03:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could see where you might think that given my edit summary. That was sloppiness on my part, I reused a previous edit summary that was I precise as it could have been. Either way, I think that PROD is the way to go here. Dsmdgold 03:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A835 road

Hello Erechtheus

You added a "unreferenced" tag to my article on the A835 road ... I'm still a newbie to making new articles and I don't quite follow ... what references do I need for an article like this? Not as if it's something from the news which I could quote.

Thanks in advance Iainjones1980 18:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, I've put a few references in ... Iain

Ludowe Zespoły Sportowe

Hello, Erechtheus. I hope that Polish Ministry of Sports site (.gov domain, in English) will be accepted as a reliable source. Regards Lajsikonik 00:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Dattatreya Laxman Patwardhan

I added verifiable information and cleaned up the content prior to your reinserting the "nonsense" tag. This is a real person, with a long trail of verifiable information, as long as you take the trouble to look outside the web. Can you remove the nonsense tag? Thanks.

Niketkp 17:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Unreferenced Tags

Why are you adding reference tags to a one-sentence article stating 2 films a director has made? Mcflytrap 20:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced, unreferenced...the point is that you don't have to have a source for a director's filmography. Any quick search on the internet (including IMDB) will show you the director's filmography. I'm not trying to be rude, I just think it's a bit ridiculous. I added an external link to IMDB if it makes you happy, but you really are more of a hinderance to Wikipedia than a help with a mentality like that. Mcflytrap 19:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need a source for a filmography. YOU ARE WRONG. Looking over your discussion page, it appears that a lot of other people feel the same way. There's no way around it. Have a nice day. Mcflytrap 13:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You truly are a first class idiot. Mcflytrap 14:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever been laid? Mcflytrap 14:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cry me a river. Mcflytrap 14:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will Poole

To answer your questions:

1. . Unless they are official retired, most free agent pages just say "so-and-so is an American football cornerback who is currently a free agent" and I feel that would be most appropriate in this case. I'll add the free agent part to make it clear.
2. . Not that I'm aware of. The Saints tryout in May was the last I heard.

►Chris Nelson 00:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Confused

Hmmm. You are a member of the Law Wikiproject and apparently a Lawyer - yet you tagged the Khmer Rouge Tribunal for speedy deletion and then got into an edit war when it was removed. Is it just me or is there something terribly wrong with this picture? I'd be interested to hear your views. Paxse 18:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small point – the admin who protected the page first called your exchange edit warring - not me.

The A1 tag is for articles with no context - rather than no content. I've come across these occasionally. Pages that have something like "Bill was born in 1948 and left home at the age of 15." With no context for Bill it's impossible to know if the page is encyclopedic or not. The Khmer Rouge Tribunal on the other hand has all the context (and bonus notability) it requires in the article title - therefore it should not be tagged under CSD A1.

It might also be a good idea to re-read the explanatory text at the top of the WP:SD policy page: "Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved or reduced to a stub; if so, speedy deletion is probably inappropriate. Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete. Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criteria the page meets, and consider notifying the page's creator."

1. Could this article have been improved (and would it meet WP criteria for inclusion)? Definitely
2. Was it newly created? 34 minutes old when tagged? Yep.
3. Was the creator informed? Nope.

A couple of other points. The user who created this article Jpylam had been a registered editor for only a few hours. In these first few hours he made 36 very useful and productive edits in the area of Cambodian government and politics. Coverage of Cambodian topics on WP is extremely poor and we desperately need interested editors to help expand coverage. As an example I estimate that there are at least 1000 missing articles on basic Cambodian geography. After some edits to Khmer Rouge and finding the KRT was a red link, this editor started a page on the Tribunal - her/his first article on Wikipedia. I suspect he then started googling and reading sources - his next edit was an excellent (and properly formatted) list of the major reliable primary and secondary sources for info on the Tribunal. While this was happening you tagged it for deletion. Then both of you went back and forth - him trying to add content and removing your CSD tags and you retagging the article and filling up his (brand new) talk page with warning notices. See the note on my talk page for this editor’s experience of creating that article.

What happened to not Biting the newcomers?

Don’t get me wrong – I think tagging rubbish articles is useful work that helps the project – god knows we have enough dross. But tagging useful articles, while they are being written, is just disruptive – it creates more work for other editors and most importantly it scares off new contributors.

Checking your contribution history, you tag lots of articles. Checking your talk page you also get quite a lot of complaints. Tagging is useful work for the project but so is improving the content directly and not just pointing out where others should go. Five minutes after you tagged the Khmer Rouge Tribunal you also tagged Dattatreya Laxman Patwardhan, a new article on India’s very first pilot. One article is about history in the making and another is a fairly significant part of the history of aviation. Both tags were disputed and in both cases the articles were kept. How about slowing down and be a little more discriminating with your tagging? Cheers, Paxse 04:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for a polite, well reasoned and appropriate reply - am I still on Wikipedia? :) I'm sorry if I sounded rude above - I've had a bad couple of weeks with templates and yours was the last example. To reply to your message, I'd be prepared to say that sometimes I actually like seeing new editors remove speedy templates on articles they are writing. I've come across much more inappropriate use of the speedy templates than yours, articles tagged the minute they are started and then re-applied with warning notices etc. I think it's shame that some new contributors are welcomed to WP that way. I also think it's an entirely appropriate application of WP:IAR for them to nuke the template and just get back to writing the article. Paxse 13:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance Sought

Hello Erechtheus
You classified an article I created as a bio stub seconds before it was tagged for speedy deletion. I am hoping you may be able to offer some assistance. The article I created was created entirely independently of an earlier article by the same name. The earlier had been deleted (albeit admittedly quite rightly in that case) last month by a certain someone that I suspect is not entirely unbiased in their opinions. Not surprisingly the same editor is involved in instigating the current deletion process. I am seeking help of some sympathetic and non-biased wikipedia content editors to assist me in better understanding the review process and perhaps assist me by offering the time to review and comment on the deleted page. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Yogidude 13:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Clearly, there is no useful purpose continuing the discussion we started. Therefore, I won't be continuing it. Erechtheus 13:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Except that it was no "discussion." It was a one-sided conversation, where I was attempting to have a discussion. And you refused to meaningfully engage in any intelligent discourse. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 15:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Come back and read what you have written in that AfD once cooler heads have prevailed. I'll give you another hint: I'm not the only one in that deletion discusion who refused to answer questions posed by others. I know there is at least one other thread where you acted in precisely the manner you find so offensive when I do it. I quite readily acknowledge that I attempted to limit the scope of our discussion, but it was because it was getting far out of the scope of what needed to be talked about there. If you really want to continue discussing it ad nauseum, feel free to throw this back on my user talk page and bring the topic up. I'll acknowledge you made some good points outside the realm of what matters to the Davis article, and it just may be possible we can come to a meeting of the minds. I don't know that it's worth it, though. Your call. Erechtheus 18:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Yes, I will respond to your post. But, I have had a busy weekend. So I will reply within the next day or so. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 04:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

OK, I have a few free minutes, so here goes. I will fashion my reply in three sections. Section 1: Prefatory comments. It's quite interesting ... I looked at your user page and we have many similarities and commonalities. We are almost "twins" in our profiles, characteristics, demographics, interests, etc. I was surprised to see how similar we are. That probably is the cause for much of the friction between us and the unwillingness to bend from both sides. I am wondering if you are an Aries, as well? If so, that would be the icing on the cake, and I will fall over in my chair. Section 2: Procedural matters. It seems that you and I debate/discuss in very different ways. The way I learned is: person A makes a point; then person B counters that point and makes their own point; then person A counters the counterpoint and makes their point; then person B counters the counterpoint and makes their point. And, it is an ongoing cycle, back and forth. That is, issues are raised and addressed. With you, what I saw was: issues are raised, you completely ignored them (that is, you did not address them, you did not answer them, you did not counter them, etc.). You simply ignored them. And, quite frankly, that is a terribly immature way in which to have an argument / discussion / debate. It's not very adult. It's really tantamount to when a little kid doesn't get his own way -- and he sticks both fingers in his ears and keeps shouting "na na na, I can't hear you" and ignores the other person. I will offer this. Perhaps a better way to address points is this: "Joe, I see the point that you are making about JonBenet Ramsey. Yes, that is a good point. And I guess on some level it does weaken my argument and my position. I see what you mean." OR You can say something like this: "Well, Joe, I do see your point about JonBenet Ramsey. However, the Jessie Davis case is very different because of x, y, and z." I think that those are two much more reasonable and responsible and mature ways to address the points within an argument. Address them, don't ignore them. What that does is two things: (1) it forces the person you are debating to present more counterpoints and counterarguments to support their argument. OR If you present valid points, it lets the other person see that your point is correct, valid, etc., and they may be convinced / persuaded by your argument. This is how I learned to engage in proper debate. Which also extends to conversations / arguments / discussions / disagreements / etc. Section 3: Substantive matters. You kept asserting and maintaining two things. (1) That you need to have a conviction in order to assert that a crime even happened. And (2) that one of the elements of asserting / proving the crime is the conviction itself. You and I both know that those are ludicrous positions and 100% not true. They are also legally, logically, and logistically impossible. I am sure that there are many non-lawyers who read Wikipedia. And I was certainly going to dispel them of any incorrect / inaccurate information that you were putting out there. Being non-lawyers, they might just actually believe the assertions you made. And I found that irresponsible, and I attempted to correct it. Those are the three sections I wanted to address -- prefatory, procedural, and substantive. Also, I notice that you did two other things ... this probably falls under the "procedural" section. (1) You would always side step an issue rather than address it head on. And (2) when you could see that I was making valid points, you would alter / change / restate / reframe the issue at hand so that it would match what you wanted. For you, the issue was never firm. For you, it became fluid to match your needs and arguments. That is certainly not proper debate. There were many examples of this, but one was: toward the end, after I made many many many many valid points and after I successfully countered many many many of your points, you all of the sudden reframed the issue and raised the bar to "the State of Ohio must prove beyond any doubt that a murder occurred." You threw that in at the last minute, I guess after you realized you were sinking. You and I both know that is legally incorrect, not to mention physically impossible. So, in a nutshell, that is my reply. And - quite frankly - I guess I still do not know what your position is, and what point you were trying to make. So, not for nothing, but what does that say about your ability to argue / debate / discuss / defend / persuade / etc.? I am guessing that you will take much of this as a personal affront. But these are my honest assessments and how I feel about these issues. In any event, I think that the bottom line is: we approach debate / discussion / argument / persuasion in two very different ways. And, ultimately, mine is the correct / proper / established / traditional way. Your method, I guess, is just something that you made up along the way. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 20:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Section 1: Sagittarius, but I don't put much stock in astrology. That would seem to be another difference. Section 2: I understand where you're coming from, and I'd agree that in the context of a free-wheeling debate, it's best to address all issues. That's not where we were in the context of that AfD, though. What I probably should have done was take it away from that forum after about 2 rounds because we quickly stopped saying much that was all that important to the deletion discussion. I'll happily admit error there, and I'd invite you to review the rules of AfD and the discussion itself to see for yourself where I'm coming from. You made some good points, but they were not particularly relevant to the discussion related to the deletion or retention of the article. If we had been discussing the issue here instead of there, the discussion likely would have gone in a manner you're more accustomed to. Compare this to the way it goes in court if you will. Section 3 I will certainly agree that I asserted that on Wikipedia, you need a conviction to assert a crime happened. I'll also agree my statement, while true in many cases, is quite incomplete. What you clearly need in order to say anything remotely controversial on Wikipedia is a reliable secondary source that says it first. Would you agree that is true? That would mean that it's certainly appropriate to report the Black Dahlia event as a murder because it has been called that in tons of places. It would also mean that it wouldn't be appropriate to call anything a murder until somebody else has first. As to your claim that I indicated an element of the crime must be the conviction, I strongly believe that is a misstatement or mis-analysis of my position. I think the issue there once again is that I was talking about what is acceptable on Wikipedia, not what must be proven during trial. What must be proven in a trial is irrelevant to the matter we were discussing. You have also misstated what I said about the state of Ohio near the end of our discussion. I asked you a question: "Can you actually give us a cite where the state of Ohio says without any doubt this was a murder?" I didn't say anything about what the standard of proof in a trial is. I made a suggestion that if you're talking about putting something here on Wikipedia and it's based upon the analysis of the state prior to any examination by anyone, they'd better be pretty certain about it. Possible murder doesn't mean murder. Investigating it as a murder doesn't mean murder. Finally, I really don't take any of this personally. I've been around this crazy world long enough to not take anything anyone says on the Internet too seriously. You obviously think you have this debate thing down pat and I don't. I'll manage to sleep. Feel free to respond. Erechtheus 01:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I finally have found a few free minutes to respond to you. Thanks for getting back to me. (1) Yes, it is true that the original debate was whether or not the Jessie Davis article should be deleted or retained. Somehow, you and I got off on a tangent of the correct title of the article and whether or not the word "murder" was appropriate. So, yes, I agree -- we were both arguing off on a tangent. And, as you suggested, it would have behooved us both if one or the other of us suggested bringing the debate to some other, more appropriate forum. (2) Yes, I agree that in order to make a statement on Wikipedia, one needs sources to do so. We are not in disagreement there. (3) As to your last point, you originally DID indeed suggest (not suggest, require) that the State of Ohio needs to show without any doubt that this was a murder. (I also am not talking about proof at trial.) It is, of course, impossible for anyone at all -- including law enforcement officials in Ohio -- to prove much of anything (including this crime) without any doubt. That is an impossible standard not only in the courtroom, but also in the context of Wikipedia citing rules. You also claim, with regard to Ohio law enforcement, that "they'd better be pretty certain about it." I would posit that, indeed, they ARE pretty certain about it, and hence (due to their being pretty certain about it) they brought official charges consistent with their "pretty certain" certainties. Also, you say that "a possible murder doesn't mean [an actual] murder ... Investigating it as a murder doesn't mean [an actual] murder." I would say that this is NOT merely an investigation. Rather, AFTER an investigation, formal charges were brought -- due to and as a result of an investigation. Thus, the State of Ohio is not simply investigating whether a murder occurred. They have already investigated that question -- and they have indeed concluded that a murder did indeed occur. And, as a result, they brought formal (murder) charges in court. (4) So, I guess the bottom line is that you feel it cannot yet be called a murder, and I feel that it can. Thanks for your input. (JosephASpadaro 18:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

DC Meetup notice

Greetings. There is going to be a Washington DC Wikipedia meetup on next Saturday, July 21st at 5pm in DC. Since you are listed in Category:Wikipedians_in_Virginia, I thought I'd invite you to come. I'm sorry about the short notice for the meeting. Hopefully we'll do somewhat better in that regard next time. If you can't come but want to make sure that you are informed of future meetings be sure to list yourself under "but let me know about future events", and if you don't want to get any future direct notices \(like this one\), you can list yourself under "I'm not interested in attending any others either" on the DC meetup page.--Gmaxwell 22:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Siren FM

You placed a primarysources template on this article. I have added some sources and hope this satisifies. - Lee Stanley 22:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. As far as I'm concerned, you can feel free to remove this sort of template when you feel you have addressed the concern. I do thank you for feeling concerned enough about it to leave me a message, though. Erechtheus 22:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC) (Your reply was moved from my talk page).[reply]

List of soul-jazz musicians

I'll buy you lunch if you can find me even ONE person that does not belong there. References are suggested for all articles, I'd never contest that. But they are seldom placed on lists due to the fact that the references can be found at the corresponding biography links. Unless you would like me to make a reference section with 100's of books that will make no sense to the reader (which I'm not doing, btw), I do not see the point. I do know you can't find one that isn't categorized correctly. I'm just that good. (Mind meal 02:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

No problem. So you know though, asking for a source on Nat Adderley being a soul-jazz musician is like asking for a source saying Charlie Parker was a bebop musician. Yeah, in this case All Music Guide will suffice. Are you proposing you yourself are going to go down the line, placing a reference after every last link? Also, you say as it stands this list is not worth having (snobby attitude, nice one). I challenge you to nominate it for deletion then, see how strong your argument is. (Mind meal 03:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

But all that tag is going to do is sit there for years and years. Nobody in their right mind is going to be able to reference all of that information. Not thoroughly, efficiently or effectively. The reference list will be as long as the list itself, and it is going to grow substantially. You are kinda out in left field on this, in my opinion. Have you ever referenced a list? I'd like to see how that works. Also, there is nothing to fix, because there is nothing wrong. As has been said, you couldn't find me a musician that doesn't belong there in a million years. I don't play when it comes to jazz. (Mind meal 03:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

And so we are clear, I do think the kind of work you do is admirable. I just don't see how very large lists can be referenced sufficiently. (Mind meal 03:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I know it is part of the guidelines, but it is seldom enforced concerning lists. That's all. I don't really care that it is there, the list will still give people what they came looking for. I just have never seen that before, ie. the template placed on lists (or references). (Mind meal 03:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Re: Daddy Cool (single)

Just curious; which part of this page is it that you think needs references or sources? All the info is from the Boney M. biography....

Dreamer.se 22:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)dreamer.se [reply]

I am Sorry for my aggression

Hello Erechtheus,this is the ashamed creator of U.Z.Z. I am sorry that I was hard on you. What the heck was I thinking? I was get all angry over an article. I was very arrogant and rude to you. And I wish I wasn't. I mean I need to get over the U.Z.Z. article. Now its a merge. But its fine now,you just made mistakes. And I need to to say sorry for mine. If you are wondering why I can still contact you on vacation (I'm coming back in 2 days) its because I'm using a laptop. -Angel David22:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs Henry Allingham Fred Wilpon Bryant, Seattle, Washington Dunlap, Seattle, Washington Booker Ervin Emiliano Mercado del Toro Django Reinhardt Gene Ammons Harry Chiti WCWM Windermere, Seattle, Washington Anderson Hernández Madison Valley, Seattle, Washington St. Lucie Mets Tike Redman Denny-Blaine, Seattle, Washington Bud Harrelson Denny Regrade, Seattle, Washington Northlake, Seattle, Washington

Cleanup Juan Samuel Robin Shou Falls Church High School Merge Finishing move List of U.S. state insects Closure operator Add Sources Phil Linz Lee Mazzilli Yaroslav Popovych Wikify Claude Hopkins Great Seattle Fire Polonia Warszawa Expand Yorman Bazardo Max Roach Jeff Agoos

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

A Way to Keep out Vandals

Greetings Erechtheus! Has there been any Vandalism on your user page. Well, if it happened or (God forbid)if it will ever happen all you just have to do is type this to keep them out-

{{User:Vishwin60/Userbox/VandalProof}}

Happy editing!

-Angel David ?!? ,19:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs Langston Walker New York/New Jersey Knights Kelly Holcomb Dunlap, Seattle, Washington Henry Allingham 1969 National League Championship Series WCWM Tike Redman Radio Disney Bud Harrelson Tim Russert Django Reinhardt Fred Wilpon Heath Bell Huntingdale railway station, Melbourne Madison Valley, Seattle, Washington Harry Chiti Antowain Smith Anderson Hernández

Cleanup Randall Cunningham Robin Shou One Being Merge Direct Client-to-Client AOL Ira Kaplan Add Sources Tommy Maddox Phil Linz Yaroslav Popovych Wikify Great Seattle Fire Polonia Warszawa Eastwood Town F.C. Expand Yorman Bazardo A1 (band) Bobby Bonilla

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

New Article Improvment page for WP:VIRGINIA

Seeing as our old Collaborations page at WP:VIRGINIA had no activity in the past year it was decided to replace it with a new Article Improvement/Request Help page that would allow members to list articles in need of attention. Its also a place to request help for an article taht you are working on to see if any other members would like to volunteer and help out. Thanks. T Rex | talk 01:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Postal Order articles

I am hoping that someone from the Numismatics Wikiproject may have an example of postal orders to illustrate articles such as Postal Orders of South West Africa in the same way that someone has illustrated the article Postal Orders of Ireland. - (Numismaticman 03:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Good evening. Thanks for looking at my article on Thomas Billing. I can't pretend it took me many hours to compile - it was lifted straight from the DNB. But is it rightly described as a "stub"? After all, how much does anyone want to be told about a 15th century English judge?

45ossington 21:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, someone called Splash has now promoted it to B, which may be a step too far in the other direction - who knows? Anyway, I'm sure Billing would be flattered to know that people were still taking an interest in his career 500 years on.

45ossington 09:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Route 59 (Metra) Source

Don't tell me that Metra itself isn't a reliable source for this article(http://metrarail.com/Sched/bn/hy59.shtml). They've got an image of the station, a map of the parking areas, the bus connections and other details. So why the tag? ---- DanTD 01:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you know of any other source, bring it on. I'm hoping it's some train-lover from the suburbs of Chicago, because they should know a lot better than I would. ---- DanTD 04:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historic landscape characterisation

You recently tagged the article on historic landscape characterisation with the primarysources template. I usually regard English Heritage as a reliable source. What sort of references do you think the article needs? Rjm at sleepers 17:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple of non English Heritage references. Have a look and see whether they are sufficient to remove the tag. Rjm at sleepers 18:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was quick - cheers. Rjm at sleepers 18:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What?

Are you sending a welcome tag to me as if I vandalized? LOL What is this? I see you're looking for pages to tag them. Sources for an album are unnecessary. Information can found be via the page of the singer. See I'm Your Baby Tonight by Whitney Houston. There is so much of information there, and not even one source, so please find another task. The next time I'll turn to an administrator. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you? Get out of my way! Stop re-adding this stupid template of welcome, I'm not a newcomer here. I'm creating pages. Nobody took care and I'm trying to help. It comes from the official site of Yolandita Monge - here is the link [5]. And in WP:A there is nothing like this indicated so don't make up stories please. --Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability?

Jeremie Belpois, a character from Code Lyoko, IS notable. There, the article should NOT be deleted. Please do not add the maintenance tags again. Thank you. Angie Y. 12:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

John Tyndall Award

You added:

This article or section needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications. Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article. Please include more appropriate citations from reliable sources.

My comment:

It seems to me that the organization that gives an award is the best authority about the award criteria and its recipients to date. Who do you consider a "more appropriate citation from reliable sources"?

With all best wishes, Daderot 23:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually two issues here. The first is WP:RS. I encourage you to read about primary versus secondary sourcing. The second is WP:N. That is really the same issue if you ask me, but it is perhaps a better explanation. The questions are not only whether the information is reliable but also whether these awards matter enough to have an article here. I think they probably do, but this will be a better article when attributed third party commentary is included. Please don't take the template as a slam on your work. I love seeing the encyclopedia expand. I just want to make sure it is the best encyclopedia it can be. That's why I spend a lot of my editing effort adding these sorts of editorial templates. Erechtheus 23:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your notes, which are much appreciated. Let me respond to your two points in turn. As for Reliable Sources (WP:RS), I quote: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science." Please note that the IEEE and OSA are two of the most respected scientific organizations in the world; thus I think their reliability in scientific matters is acceptable. Your second point is Notability (WP:N). Here I quote: "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines." Here it seems that published peer recognition is the essential criterion, and is surely the case for IEEE and OSA awards. With all best wishes, Daderot 00:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Italian basketball teams

Hi,

I have noticed you have been adding sources tags to some of the Italian basketball teams pages I have been creating. I just wanted to let you know that those tags are totally justified, and I wish that somebody would find some better sources. I'm using the official websites for the Italian League and Italian Wikipedia to add history and rosters for now, so that at least there are stubs in place. Teams' own websites are non-independent sources, obviously, but is the league's site a "third-party reliable" source? Sounds borderline to me. In any case, I have no access to the Italian libraries and Google News Archive does not have much in the way of old Italian newspapers - hope that somebody who has access to those will source those articles better. Cheers and enjoy your day! Karaboom 00:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{sources}}

You are using the {{sources}} tag rather a lot- generally, that is used when articles need more sources than they already have, because the claims they make can't really be verified by what the sources say, or because of the nature of the source compared to the nature of the statement. A more appropriate tag for the new articles you are tagging would be {{unref}}. J Milburn 00:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public Ledger

Are you satisfied with my References - consisting of the paper(s) itself/themselvers? --Ludvikus 02:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Request For Assistance, re: Maureen Long

Hi, hoped you might take a look at my questions in the Discussion section of the "Maureen Long" article I created. Any help would be appreciated. Best, Sir Rhosis 02:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Assistance re: Robert M. O'Neil

Hi--started a thread on the Talk page for Robert M. O’Neil. If you have an opportunity to clarify any specific concerns that would be very helpful to me. Tjarrett 15:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation tag on Tvisha

Hi there, I noticed that you had flagged the Tvisha article. Which other article's are out there referring to the same name? rahul 16:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Erechtheus

Two things (look - no apostrophe!): Some of the templates on your user page are great - are they copyright or in the public domain ('cos I'd love to use a couple of 'em on my own page)? Secondly, we met up, briefly, on a page I started recently. Although its (see, no ') continued existence is slightly doubtful due to the polemic involved, I'd like it to be kept there as long as possible 'cos there's a lot at stake and it's only a matter of time time before it becomes a victim of vandalism. So, the bottom line is, can I count on your experience here at Wikipedia to help eke out its shaky future? If not, quite understand, and would appreciate neutral comments on how to improve it. No need to answer this plea - actions speak louder than words. Well, regarding the templates, would appreciate something. Regards, --Technopat 21:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS

Forgot to ask: Is the Chewbacca Defense applicable in this case? Not being well versed in jurisprudence has its limitatations. Regs., --Technopat 21:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Greetings again, Erechtheus

Thanks for your prompt reply. In answer to your questions (can't remember order):

a) your template

’s	Thi's user know's that not every word that end's with s need's an apostrophe and will remove misused apostrophe's from Wikipedia with extreme prejudice.

b) San Glorio
c) I signed - I nearly always remember - and this time was no different. Regards, --Technopat 00:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks, and the same (happy editing) to you! Regs. --Technopat 00:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bands Against Bush

Hi, I reviewed your speedy delete request for this article. I believe speedy delete is not appropriate because despite a lack of sources and although it may well not ultimately have any, the article does claim notability, was founded by a notable figure, and is not an obvious prank or advertisement. For this reason, I believe either the proposed deletion or the regular articles for deletion approach, which takes longer and gives authors of unsourced articles an opportunity to provide sources and justify notability before deletion, would be the better approach. I believe speedy deletes are reserved for cases where lack of notability etc. is completely obvious. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I believe the general rule is that speedy deletion is to be enforced only if an article inappropriateness is obvious. We get plenty of articles written by 12-year-olds about their garage bands and love interests. Also things like attack articles, wholesale copies of website pages, and the like. If there's a chance it might possibly be legit, better to use one of the other processes. Articles for deletion involves a discussion by the community open for several days. This gives supporters and bystanders an opportunity to dig up sources and strengthen it if they can. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of notability tags

Hello, I recently noticed that you tagged Hypocrisy (band) with a notability tag and would like to point out that your tag is not justified. I do not know if you are aware of the criteria set forth for notability in WP:MUSIC, but even if you are, I would highly recommend you go read it. Hypocrisy clearly meets criteria #5, #4, and #1 under WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. --Leon Sword 01:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you have never heard of a label or band does not mean it must not be notable. If you do a bit of research you'll find that Nuclear Blast is indeed a very notable label, in fact it is not even considered an indy label, it's considered a major label. And the misuse bit is true, as I have noticed you have wrongfully tagged other articles that met several WP:MUSIC criteria, furthermore, other editors have apparently expressed concerns over your notability tags. Yes, your notability tag on the Hypocrisy article was unjustified since the article clearly claims notability. --Leon Sword 02:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Blast may not be a RIAA label, it is an independent label but is considered major because they release their albums worldwide and have signed various charting bands such as In Flames, Nightwish, HammerFall and others. A quick google search will prove my point that Hypocrisy indeed meets criteria #1 and #4, but that is pointless because a band only needs to meet one criteria to be considered notable and Hypocrisy already clearly meets #5. Also, Hypocrisy is not my pet project, I just happened to notice your edit. By the way, you seem to have the impression that I'm the one who is not familiar with Wiki policies and guidelines, when in reality I've been here a while and have contributed to several articles and I'm very familiar with the way Wiki works. You should try to spend more time editing than tagging articles with tags you clearly have not learned to use correctly. --Leon Sword 02:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to War (Swedish band), you think it should be redirect huh? Should we redirect it then to Dark Funeral, Hypocrisy, or Abruptum? The band has released multiple albums of its own on a label, so it definately qualifies for its own article and if you do a quick google search, you'll find that it meets criteria #1 as well. --Leon Sword 02:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again Nuclear Blast is not major in the sense that it is a RIAA label, it's a major in the sense of it's established prominence in music. I guess a better way to put it is how it's worded in WP:MUSIC, "one of the more important indy labels". I don't know how you got the impression that I was attacking you since I never threw an offensive remark your way. Responding to your comments consistenly (without using any offensive language) is not attacking you. I agree that it is not your job to do quick google searches, but even so the tags were still unjustified because both articles (Hypocrisy and War) claimed notability by stating that the bands have released multiple albums through labels. By the way, I can see your side of this, I myself have done my fair share (and continue to do so every once in a while) of tagging random articles for this or that. --Leon Sword 03:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cmyOS

The notability says that web content counts as notable and as noted, cmyOS is part of only a few current free & open web operating systems that are online right now. I would say this justifies the article. --Maxeboy 04:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

WNBA Peak Performers

I added some more information to the WNBA peak performer page. Hopefully it's enough to be included towards the WNBA page/ catagories.ELO MnLynx Fan77 14:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spaced

Hi, sorry but in my impatience to tidy up the original Spaced page i forgot about moving the the appropriate references from there to the character page. My bad. Radical AdZ 17:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crometeo article

Thank you for the warning about the lacking references. I will try to supply them in the near future. Humanist505 18:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Batman Films

Thanks. I was about to {prod2} it because I shared your concerns, then I had a sudden moment of inspiration... Hellosandimas 00:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

By-elections

By elections are mostly for choosing replacement pollies, if an incumbent member retires unexpectedly. -Malkinann 01:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they're pretty rare occurrences - that's why two in the same election are so unusual. -Malkinann 02:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of Rebecca brindley

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Rebecca brindley, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Rebecca brindley is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Rebecca brindley, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 14:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parks in San Diego, California

Please stop adding Template:unref to Parks in San Diego, California. I have reverted your edit and you have reverted it back again. There is nothing that needs to be sourced on that article; therefore, no citations are needed. Thanks. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 10:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

JayPaul S. Ahluwalia

I read the article carelessly and thought it was an advertisement for the company named in it. Your tag was correct, so I removed mine. --Rrburke^(talk) 04:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red State Update

...Why was it deleted? CNN and Salon.com seem like reliable enough sources to me... I actually created it because it was listed on Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social sciences and I happen to be a fan. Rompe 21:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Suburban Noize Records Compilations

I see many are concerned in why you are notability templates that will soon be considered for deletion. In my case, I am concerned in Suburban Noize Presents: Sub-Noize Rats and The Royal Family albums. You are saying that they don't fit the discription for a reliable article. These are simple albums that has little information. Many albums placed on Wikipedia do not have the greatest amount of work. The most that is possible for fixing is to add which albums some of these tracks are included on, but other than that this album has its full discriptions. And yes I understand the reference template. Thank You. Apologies2all 19:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I've seen you tagging behind my English bishops creation spree, and just wanted to say thanks for the help! Ealdgyth | Talk 03:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suburban Noize Records Compilations

Please stop mistagging the Suburban Noize Compilation albums. Suburban Noize Records is a label known worlwide, also including a branch in Japan, Suburban Noize Japan. You keep repeatedly mistagging because you may possibly be looking to earn more achievements by deleting bands/labels you don't know of or possibly just mistakingly thinking its not notable, but they indeed are a well known company. If it is for the possibility that there is no Suburban Noize Records page, then blame that on the mistaggers who have gotten it block with no given reason. The albums are notable. Apologies2all 20:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OpenThesaurus

Would you like to check it again? Are the sources okay now? (Note the talk page)--Speck-Made 20:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

John Hugh McNary

What more needs to be added to make the above not a stub? Aboutmovies 00:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phillipsburg, Ontario

WP:SOFIXIT. Or tag it for WP:CLEANUP. Wl219 16:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Astibo

chill man, I just wrote the line, I will add sources later and hopefully expand it when I have time :) Capricornis 01:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picnic (sampler album)

chill man, I just wrote the line, I will add sources later and hopefully expand it likewise, I'm working on it. --Rodhullandemu 03:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice, I've only been here a few weeks and the "Under Construction" tag is new to me; I have left an editorial note on the page but if you can point me at the tag it would save me some time. I may point out I've been editing solidly for 16 hours and need some sleep- once I can leave this page in a state where I can come back & pick up tomorrow, that will be it for tonight. --Rodhullandemu 03:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you. --Rodhullandemu 03:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

I noticed that you added such templates in Save the Drama for Your Llama. This is kind of unfair. Howcome articles of the same category aren't being given similar tags? FoxLad 04:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source

Isn't the FIBA America official website a reliable source of the FIBA America Championship? the same for Oceania..Calapez 14:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once Again?

You simply seem to be adding these templates to be rewarded for your additional offers to wiki. This template was correct when placed for the Suburban Noize Compilatiojn albums for the simple fact that Suburban Noize Records has no page. (Once again it has been decided to stay blocked by the adminisrators). The proble, is that you label the Sub Noize Souljaz page with a notability tag when this is outrageous. It is obviously notable for the group known as the Subnoize Souljaz and the reference is perfect for it shows full details in the album. I simply summarized the official site's discription. Look at the page and you'll notice it explains the album. You happen to enjoy mistagging and if this continues it will be notified for vandalism. --Apologies2all 19:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Droppin Bombs

Since you seem to be an "expert" wikipedian, may I please ask you if the references included in the Droppin Bombs article are propers resources. I believe that the official Billboard listings happen to be great references, but at the same time you happen to say that my others are not good enough so hopefully now they are. --Apologies2all 15:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

I was to some point getting irritated by the tag, but I did know it was for the best interest of the artices. I have noticed that All Music happens to be a popular source and I personally think it's great, but Billboard has always been my main source. Either way they both work and I appreciate the help for the article. As for Suburban Noize Records.... I have requested it be unprotected or atleast semi-protected, but it has'nt been approved. The first deletion was reasonable, but the second was done with no reason given. Hopefully, I can get the page up and along with other create what can be a great article. --Apologies2all 17:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Is there some reason...

Is there some reason you didn't follow the recommended courtesy of giving the article creator a heads-up when you nominated Gaillard Hunt for {{db-bio}}? Geo Swan 21:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Unref

Just wanted to let you know that you dont have to go tagging all of my new articles; I am aware that there need to be references, I just havn't done them yet; they should be completed by tomorrow night. Gizzakk 02:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I've just had a few instances of people "following" me around and tagging things that I am in the process of improving and it gets exceedingly annoying. Good luck to you as well! Gizzakk 03:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Boris Kotlerman

An article that you have been involved in editing, Boris Kotlerman, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boris Kotlerman. Thank you. You placed a notability tag on the article that was removed. Regards, gidonb 07:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rathmichael

Hi. You have tagged as unreferenced a stub about a place, Rathmicheal. I am not sure what part of the stub you feel needs references. Some help here (Sarah777 08:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)) [reply]

Cold Sun

I see where you're coming from; however I think it's a good faith edit rather than the vanity edits that we usually get. A quick Google search reveals that - although not from a reliable source - the band may be in fact notable. According to this, The Blood Drained Cows tour the US, making them notable, and they contain a member of Cold Sun - making Cold Sun at least worthy of a redirect to the page for 'The Cows'. I'm stretching things, I know - but maybe it's worth an AFD, which I'll set upp if you want? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 01:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Maybe an AFD is best. Music is not my forté - I am more of a technology man. We will give it a fewdays, then maybe I'll AFD it if it's no better. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 01:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Higgins (cricketer)

I note you rated this article stub-class. That seems a little bit harsh to me: what do you feel I need to do to improve its rating? Loganberry (Talk) 02:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'm reasonably happy with start-class, so I'll leave it at that. I suppose one problem with people like this is that very often hardly any of their life details are known except for their cricketing achievements, which makes it hard to include lots of sub-headings, balanced coverage of their life, etc. Loganberry (Talk) 14:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The album is not at the internet

the album of Aldemaro Romero La Mejor Música de los Andes Venezolanos (album), is not at the internet, the only source and references that i have is the LP.

Caracas 2000 15:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saving My Face

Hello.

First off, I would like to thank you for making it clear about some of the changes I need to make to the article I created, and I will try my best to fix/clean it up. However, I am new, and would like some assistance.

First off, the song has not charted yet, but has been confirmed to be the next single. Future singles don't chart right away. I actually have some sources that confirm this, but they are in print form (newspapers/magazines), not online. How would it be possible to cite printed sources?

Second, I partially question the deletion of the article. I would assume that since I just started the article, perhaps wait some more before you tag it for deletion. Usually as time passes, more information will be available to be added to the article.

Anyways, thank you for your time, and a reply would be nice. :) K-121 Widowmaker (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Highland Community College

Please consider removing the template that you put on the front page of Highland Community College (Illinois). I added as many references as I was able to find. If you have any recommendations, please leave them on the talk page for Highland. Thanks for your help, (LonghornJohnny 04:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)) [reply]

Mayo SFC

Excuse me, but could you kindly leave the Mayo 1989 Championship page alone please? It is fully correct, I have personally researched this, and if you want the source, then here it is: Western People archives, summer/autumn 1989, c/o Mayo County Library, Castlebar, Co. Mayo, Ireland. Now go and mess with someone else's work. Owenmoresider 01:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well two points: 1) Where do I put these 'sources' on the page? 2) Can you disprove anything I posted there? If I wanted, I could put this stuff in a book and make it worth my while, but I'm not going to do that. I have a source, and I've no intention of abusing the wiki or posting inaccurate information - just to post up a record of local/regional GAA affairs of benefit to those who are interested in the subject. I've done this considerably on the wiki, and in good faith, there are plenty making a mockery of it without getting into technical detail about a rather minor topic of a minority interest. It stays as it is until tomorrow, when I'll return to the site. Owenmoresider 02:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Chicken hunter wanted

An article that you have been involved in editing, Chicken hunter wanted, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicken hunter wanted. Thank you. Carlossuarez46 03:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Chicken hunter License to grill

An article that you have been involved in editing, Chicken hunter License to grill, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicken hunter wanted. Thank you. Carlossuarez46 03:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inver

I think we were here before with Rathmichael; I have removed the single non-geographical word from the Inver article and would politely ask you not to replace the tag. Thanks (Sarah777 03:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

List of Sigma Lambda Beta Chapters

A primary sources template is unnecessary, seeing at the only complete lists of this organizations chapters are located only in print, and on their official site. A third party source for this information, not only for this organization, but almost every Greek organization, is impossible.

If third party sources are expected for lists of Greek organization chapters, then the Primary Sources template needs to be placed on just about very Greek chapters list on Wikipedia.

Thus, I will be deleting the Primary Sources Template off of the "List of Sigma Lambda Beta Chapters" page.

Socrates SLB KA 09:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How are list of Lambda Theta Phi chapters or list of sigma alpha mu chapters any different? In fact, the majority of [[category:Lists of chapters or members of United States student societies]] seem to fall uner this problem, having only listed their organization's home page.

Socrates SLB KA 20:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just here to re-state what Socrates already said. The national website is the GO TO source. Third-party media isn't going to publish an updated list every time a new chapter or colony is formed. My 2 cents. Nguerrero03 01:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caffe D'Amore update

I did a large rewrite of that page up for AfD. You may wish to re-examine the article. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Repetetive actions

It seems for many album pages you have decided to misuse tags and edit them incorrectly. Before I was able to see my mistake in not using proper references, but now I deeply feel you are doing this solely for wiki credit. You decided to list the Organic Soul track listing under Daddy X's page. It was properly linked to begin with and the only thing you could have done was to place s stub template on the album's page. After speaking with many administrators I have been informed that this is considered vandalism. Hopefully, you learn how to control this misuse of editing. tris31erlover 17:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy your contributions. That is all there is to it. I don't remember typing the above message, but if so it must have been for a reason. My only reasoning is that I have been told under another account that rather than adding the track listing, you would be better off working on it or placing a stub template. You can be cocky about your work, but the last time we spoke we made an agreement that it was all in the sake of a better Wikipedia. --tris31erlover 23:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A31lover (talk • contribs)[reply]

your concerns

I write on controversial topics. Because I write on controversial topics I double check my contributions to do my best to fully comply with WP:NPOV and other core wikipedia policies.

I don't expect to succeed 100% of the time. So, I ask every wikipedia contributor who says they have a concern that I have lapsed from policy, in one or more of my contributions, to take the time to be civil and specific about the passages they think fail to comply.

You stated you have concerns. Therefore, I'd like you to please take the time to be civil and specific about the passage that triggered your concern.

Yours for a civil wikipedia. Geo Swan 16:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Virginia Newsletter October 2007

The October 2007 issue of the Virginia WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.--Kubigula (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Spam in St. Mary's Hospital (Richmond)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on St. Mary's Hospital (Richmond), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because St. Mary's Hospital (Richmond) is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting St. Mary's Hospital (Richmond), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Game Shows

Hi, I'm Son, and I'm working to recreate Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Game Shows. If you want to remain a member in the project, please say that you are active by adding a time stamp next to your user name. If you do not want to remain a member, please remove your user name from the list. Thank you! --Son (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]