Thanks for your support on my RfA. It passed with 55/0/0. I'll try my best to be worthy of the trust the community has put in me. If there are any of my actions you have a problem with or a question about, please feel free to discuss this with me and if needed to revert me. If there is anything else I can help you with (backlogs, comments, ...), you can always contact me on my talk page. Fram 15:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Addhoc 19:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing that you put up a bar on the character page for Duo Maxwell that would require references and sources and so I asked the person who I helped with on another page on the same subjecte to rewrite it and it has been done, would you like to see it now? -Adv193 16:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for letting me know, Addhoc 19:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyway what do you think of the changes and if you want you can talk to Saberwyn the user I asked to work on the sourcing and redesign or myself. -Adv193 03:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, definitely an improvement. Addhoc 18:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thought you might like to see what effect your prod had! Johnlp 00:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, thank you very much: most kind and unexpected! Johnlp 19:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for advising me of the prod notices you placed. I see johnlp has kindly dealt with them in my absence.
Whereas I can understand your concern that the articles in question are short of content, they are part of a large series that the cricket project is developing in due course. Even so, I have taken pains to ensure that they are all properly categorised, that the main sources are noted and that the events themselves (e.g., a first-class cricket season in New Zealand in 1927) are actual events. All that is needed is for the cricket project to find the time to attend to them and, if you look at similar articles for English cricket, you will see that we are indeed working our way through them. Even if they are deleted now, they will have to be resurrected eventually to complete the big picture, so we might as well have them there as stubs so that anyone with the time and inclination can pick one up and work on it. This is forward planning; it is what stubs are for; and it is why Wikipedia encourages the creation of stubs. Rome was not built in a day.
All the best. --BlackJack | talk page 21:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
Thank you for your comments on my my recent RfA in which I withdrew because the oppose votes were almost equalling the supporters. I then decided to leave my account (Tellyaddict) and start fresh under a new username, however I quickly decided to reconsider after another user persuaded me not to leave the account - I am now glad I did reconsider because leaving that account and creating a new one was too hasty so I've decided to improve rather than starting again! I hope we can remain civil and that there were no negative feelings caused. Again, thanks for your support even though you opposed and I withdrew it, your vote is much appreciated! Regards - Tellyaddict (Talk) 19:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
Thanks for the note! I think that the article should be kept, so I'm going to be removing the tag and explaining on the talk page. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do, though, on the article itself: should I simply remove the tag, or should it be replaced with a contested deletion tag? Nyttend 13:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Nyttend, thanks for explaining and I won't pursue the article to AfD. Addhoc 16:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- i really can't seem to think why a country like Gambia joining the Olympic Games is non-notable. having an NOC and being a member of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) with athletes marching with their national flag and seen and broadcasted around the world is not notable? Please note that the Olympic movement is not just about medals, there's much to sports than winning. --RebSkii 22:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest you have a look at WP:N "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other". Addhoc 22:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- yeah, like there are 6 published works from each Olympic Games Organizing Committee from the time this country started participating in the games (and counting) on this subject matter and several websites regarding Gambia's participation. plus numerous published works on the olympics, all of which are totally independent from Gambia and are independent from each other. -- RebSkii 22:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebskii, could I suggest you don't post on my talk page in future. Also, could I suggest you carefully read WP:N and WP:A before making any further similar remarks. Thanks, Addhoc 22:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the barnstar, man. I am back, briefly. Best wishes. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Addhoc, just stopping by to say thanks a bunch for supporting my Rfa which passed successfully on saturday, I am honoured to serve the community. If you ever need any help, or want to give me some comments, you know where to find me, cheers again Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to consider making it a little smoother for those of us who check there by writing more specifics than
"This article is about a subject which may not be notable enough to be included on Wikipedia."--a word or two about what the guy thinks he is helps--some look only for academics, or painters, or musicians,--I try to add somethink like that when I have the time. But thanks for all the good catches.02:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- The standard phrase is generated by the {{prod-nn}} template and I'm not sure how the template could be modified to incorperate your request. Alternatively, could the bot which generates the WP:PRODSUM report be modified to identify biographies etc? Addhoc 20:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The way to do it is to use the template {{prod}}, putting in the reason. The point is to say what sort of a person it's a biography of, because nobody knows enough to screen them all. Look at all the prods on WP:prodsum and see how they do it. DGG 09:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this won't be seen as harassment, but I got the idea from your comment that you might not have fully understood the proposal. The intent is not to "ration" templates, but to simplify the deletion process for templates that are not being used. —dgiestc 18:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, preventing users from having templates they use occasionally is rationing. A reasonable example would be {{ActiveDiscussMC}}, which probably isn't used most of the time. Addhoc 18:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As replied there: Your example has 7 transclusions and 9 incoming links and would not be eligible for prod under the proposed policy. —dgiestc 20:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's being used at the moment; however it isn't used continuously. Also, I don't see why you are continuing this conversation on my talk page. Addhoc 20:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you may have noticed, this administrator has been engaging in some disruptive or inflamatory behavior on the Attachment disorder article and talk page. I have filed an RfC [1] and have had run ins with him in the past [2] Is there anything you can do to help or any suggestions you can make about how I can address this, or what venue to bring it to. It is beginning to feel like harrassment to me. DPetersontalk 21:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the page to my watchlist, however I'm not sure what form of dispute resolution should be used. Addhoc 22:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks...I appreciate it. Maybe after thinking about this and seeing what develops you will have some ideas. The primary article at this time is Attachment disorder. Enjoy your weekend. DPetersontalk 23:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You were a good mediator for MedCab; would you be interested in a discussion giving new mediators the benefit of your experience? This could be on-wiki or in #wikipedia-medcab, as you wish. (watchlisted you) --Ideogram 00:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, preferably on-wiki, because don't have IRC access. Addhoc 10:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have created a page for you at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Suggestions for mediators/Addhoc. --Ideogram 22:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you can get things started by writing up some thoughts. --Ideogram 03:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
your support for Chris Lawson
Are you sure you want to support this guy? Look at his source/quote for making the Red Baron jewish. read the discussion page on it. See the opposers views on his request page. Look at the diffs. It scares me. JohnHistory 08:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Manfred_von_Richthofen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Clawson
Thank you for support in my unsuccessful RfA. I appreciate the support, and am disappointed on being judged by what in most opinions seem to be the wrong things. Until next time, edit on! :) — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 03:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was odd. It should not have been deleted. Back now. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Addhoc 14:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some Wikipedia administartors are currently in the process of re-writing an article on Matrixism. Anyone is welcome to help with the article here at User:Neil/Matrixism. Hoping that you might help make the article stronger and more encyclopedic. 206.188.56.88 22:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Addhoc, I made annotations from at the suggested citation points that correspond with the appropriate references. The problem is that I am not familiar with how to format them as proper Wikipedia citations. I was hoping that you might be able to go over there and clean it up. I promise that I will look at your work and learn from it. 206.124.144.3 05:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also several of the sources for the Matrixism article refer to the Matrixism website by its URL in print. It seems because of this the Matrixism website should fit somewhere else into the article and not as an external link. What are your thoughts on this? 206.124.144.3 05:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're listed on that page as someone who can help out providing sources, mind helping me with Tropical cyclone? It has four {{fact}} tags remaining (I've deleted the rest), but most of all, I need someone who is not familiar with the subject to review and give comments about its organization. I may submit it to FAC soon, but I want to make sure all my ducks are in a row... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A little word to the wise - the removal of the redlinks is done automatically by bot, unless you want to remove them, there's no need. --Richhoncho 10:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Addhoc 10:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^demon[omg plz] 20:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, seeing you have been involved in previous Afd debates on the subject I invite you to contribute to this discussion to clarify certain issues about football player notability. I think clearer guidelines are needed to avoid repeated inappropriate nominations for deletion and time consuming discussions. Cheers! StephP 22:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Addhoc 22:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
Thank you for your Support on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 89/1/1. If there's anything I can help with, then you know where to find me. Cheers.
|
Greetings. I noticed that you removed some IAST tags which are used to specify which of the various methods for transliteration of Sanskrit are being used. [3] I am sure you did it for a reason, and I would like to dialog with you about it. Can you give me insight into your thinking regarding that change? Buddhipriya 23:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Buddhipriya, my intent was merely to comply with MOS:BOLD. Also, could I remind you not to use roll back for changes other than reverting vandalism. Thanks, Addhoc 11:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I interpreted the removal of translation tags as vandalism, which is why I reverted it, and as you made no other content changes there was nothing to edit except to revert your change. Thanks for dialog on this issue. Buddhipriya 18:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Buddhipriya, thanks for explaining. Obviously, I didn't realise that it's possible to use the IAST template and include the wiki mark-up for bold. Addhoc 18:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA.--Anthony.bradbury 10:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made a stupid mistake. I forgot to read the entire template and it's clearly not a policy proposal. Hopefully, my rewording describes the page better. I definitely don't want to start a new project. That would directly oppose the goal of improving the existing fact-checking project that's the whole point behind this page. - Mgm|(talk) 17:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for clarifying. Addhoc 17:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI. rudra 18:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Addhoc 18:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thoughts, I have self-reverted back to the version you wanted current. Might as well have the version according to the delete-voters be "debated" on the AfD. rudra 19:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On s similar subject, some have noted Subhash Kak in not quotable on history matters, as he is an electrical engineering professor. In more or less the same vein, Meera Nanda (quoted extensively on Hindutva propaganda) is not even a tenured academic, and only has a PhD in biotech [4]. I was curious as to your views (I see you as neutral) on the issue.Bakaman 23:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Bakasuprman, to be honest, I'm not sure. Looking at WP:RS and WP:A, there doesn't appear to be any stipulation these sources can't be used. Addhoc 23:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:FRINGE and/or WP:UNDUE seem to be the bone of contention rather than WP:RS and WP:A. Subhash Kak on one end and Meera Nanda on the other.Bakaman 23:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a difference if Nanda has published peer-reviewed work, and/or by reliable academic publishers with editorial oversight, and Kak hasnt. Not saying this is the case, haven't checked. Hornplease 09:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nanda is not a tenured academic anywhere. As per your own prior rationale she is unquotable [5]. Kak has published work and he is an academic though in an unrelated field. That would make Kak more quotable than Nanda.Bakaman 22:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If I was not aware that you are deliberately choosing to misunderstand, I would despair at the state of whichever educational system produced you. However, for the benefit of other people unwilling to make the trek to these pages and be hit between the eyes by th obvious, I will spell it out. Kak=academic in biosciences, publishing in indology, not peer-reviewed publication. Nanda = academic in biosciences, publishing in indology, peer-reviewed publication. Zydenbos = tenured academic in Indology, writing on Indology, personal website. Do you see the difference between these? And per RS, one of these is disallowed, not the others. Guess which one. Hornplease 08:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you quote the relevant section of WP:RS? Thanks, Addhoc 09:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologise for editing an archive, but since you asked: "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications.":Zydenbos, writing on his personal website; "With self-published sources, no one stands between the author and publication; the material may not be subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review....Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field.": Kak, writing for Voice of India; "In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities, mainstream newspapers, and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication.", Meera Nand, writing for Routledge. For Kak, see also WP:FRINGE.Hornplease 18:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your reply. Addhoc 18:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed you joined the Wikipedia:Editor assistance project. Please could you add your userpage to Category:Wikipedians in the Editor Assistance Project? Alternatively, you could add our userbox using {{User Editor Assistance}}. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Addhoc 17:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
