DYKadminBot (talk | contribs) Giving DYK credit for Drew Sheneman on behalf of Materialscientist |
Theleftorium (talk | contribs) →Hi!: new section |
||
Line 539: | Line 539: | ||
|On [[Wikipedia:Recent_additions#December 21 2009|December 21, 2009]], '''[[:Template:Did you know|Did you know?]]''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''[[Drew Sheneman]]''''', which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page <small>([[User:Rjanag/Pageview stats|here's how]], [http://stats.grok.se/en/200912/Drew_Sheneman quick check ] )</small> and add it to [[WP:DYKSTATS|DYKSTATS]] if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the [[:Template talk:Did you know|Did you know? talk page]]. |
|On [[Wikipedia:Recent_additions#December 21 2009|December 21, 2009]], '''[[:Template:Did you know|Did you know?]]''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''[[Drew Sheneman]]''''', which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page <small>([[User:Rjanag/Pageview stats|here's how]], [http://stats.grok.se/en/200912/Drew_Sheneman quick check ] )</small> and add it to [[WP:DYKSTATS|DYKSTATS]] if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the [[:Template talk:Did you know|Did you know? talk page]]. |
||
|} [[User:Materialscientist|Materialscientist]] ([[User talk:Materialscientist|talk]]) 03:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
|} [[User:Materialscientist|Materialscientist]] ([[User talk:Materialscientist|talk]]) 03:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Hi! == |
|||
Thank you for your contributions to [[WP:SCV]]. If you didn't know already, there's a template called [[Template:SCV]] that might be helpful for you. :) Regards, '''''[[User:Theleftorium|<font color="AE0937">The</font>]][[User talk:Theleftorium|<font color="AD4740">left</font><font color="C6454E">orium</font>]]''''' 19:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:02, 21 December 2009
Christopher Reed
Welcome to Wikipedia! I've recently commented on an article you created - Christopher Reed at its talk page. If you're interested in editing articles in Iowa, you may also be interested in joining WikiProject Iowa. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 15:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Chris Myers
Removing cited, sourced material from pages, as you did with the Chris Myers page, is considered vandalism and violates Wikipedia's rules. Please refrain from continued vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FaulknerAbsalom (talk • contribs) 17:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Respectfully, you're the one who needs to explain yourself concerning your suggested edits. Simply put: whether you like the facts cited in an entry or not, if such citations are included with a source and directly relevant, then they should be left as is. I've been going through edits with the Myers and Adler pages, both of which have negative and positive information on them, with multiple users. We found a pragmatic compromise before you came and edited out entire paragraphs and entire categories from the Myers page (There's a "Controversies" category under Adler, too, for example). We've also included different moderators into the discussion in order to mediate disagreements. This was pragmatic and emphasized a compromise. Deleting that material, which is cited correctly and balanced in each article (much of it is), does indeed constitute vandalism.FaulknerAbsalom (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC).
- I'm not sure why information that was in the original article -- Myers' fundraiser with Bush, the Jamestown Associates controversy, his refusal to answer on SCHIP the first time -- have been taken out in the name of efficiency and expediency. Culling down information is one thing; but taking out entire sections because one doesn't like the material included is another. If you keep all the factual material in there, including polling information, and merely cull it down, I won't revert the edits. Malicious or not, one cannot take out entire sections of an article because it doesn't suit their liking. Again, those of us on both sides of the issue have come to a compromise on the issue before these massive edits were inserted.FaulknerAbsalom (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you on the newspaper article endorsements, as long as the length given to the Asbury Park Press endorsement (which includes a quotation) is the same for every Adler newspaper endorsement. What I don't agree with is the polling information deleted, the Bush fundraiser reference deleted, and the Jamestown material deleted; anything else deleted, including his SCHIP position, needs to be included, though I'm open to moving such material to "Controversies." —Preceding unsigned comment added by FaulknerAbsalom (talk • contribs) 04:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- The changes make sense, and I see your logic behind each one. Thank you for leaving in some of the material we discussed. Since I now see how much more efficient many of your edits are, perhaps we should even change the polling info to a few sentences "Real Clear Politics and... list Adler as favored, while the Cook Report... list the race as a toss up." Appreciate the civility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FaulknerAbsalom (talk • contribs) 12:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to WikiProject Universities!
Died in office
I think "Died in office" is redundant in these cases. Everybody dies, but its the death in office that makes it noteworthy here. Some resign from office, some retire from office, some are removed from office, and some die in office. —Markles 13:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Ghadam-Ali Sarami
Hi A Stop at Willoughby. You may have seen that I commented on the AfD on the above-captioned article. Many of my edits are tagging for notability or deletion (speedy, prod, or AfD) articles at the end (the old end) of the new page patrol. My view is that after a month, pretty much all pages should at least make material claims that clearly would demonstrate notability if referenced (which this article currently does not do). If the article is renominated after a decent period without improvement, I will probably have the view that it merits deletion. Rgds, Bongomatic 09:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for November 2008
The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter Issue 20 - November 2008 | |
|
A Stop at Willoughby and Trap The Drum Wonder joined the alternative music fold during November.
|
SoxBot II (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for December 2008
The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter Issue 21 - December 2008 | |
|
Papa November and S. Dean Jameson joined the alternative music fold during December.
|
SoxBot II (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Flagged Revs
Hi,
I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for February 2009
The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter Issue 23 - February 2009 | |
|
MikeGruz and Blackadam2 joined the alternative music fold during February.
|
SoxBot II (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Re: Vandalism on "John Adler"
Re your message: I left a warning for the last editor to reinsert the "incident". There has been no activity since the warning, so blocking would not be appropriate at this time. But if they come back, that would be a different matter. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
DYK for James Beach
Gatoclass (talk) 06:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:NJ thanks
I wanted to thank you for your work on behalf of WP:NJ, including your updates and additions such as reflecting the recent death of Eric Munoz. I saw your James Beach article (see above), added a bit of content, and nominated the article for DYK. While I had spent a tremendous amount of time creating articles for every legislator, other preoccupations have meant that some things have slipped through my cracks. I'm glad that you've stepped up and beaten me to the punch in reflecting New Jersey legislative changes. Thanks for all your efforts. Alansohn (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for March 2009
The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter Issue 24 - March 2009 | |
|
LizParker and Cavie78 joined the alternative music fold during March.
|
SoxBot II (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for April 2009
The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter Issue 25 - April 2009 | |
|
|
SoxBot (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for May 2009
The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter Issue 26 - May 2009 | |
|
|
SoxBot (talk) 10:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009
Hello,
I am giving you this as a courtesy copy because you were among those who supported the deletion of this article. It is the text I sent to the Admin who deleted the article.
Cheers
Hello,
I was very interested in the fact that this article was deleted, well astounded might be the correct word. I read with interest the deletion log and I understand that the article has very little chance of passing. However I must assert that this does not mean that it is below the threshold of notability. I did a little research to see exactly how notable this bill is.
I went to http://stats.grok.se/ to look up how often this article was viewed:
- Jan 2009 - 577 views
- Feb 2009 - 4487 views
- Mar 2009 - 3016 views
- Apr 2009 - 2321 views
- May 2009 - 6826 views
- total - 17227 views
Even after it was deleted, in June, the deletion page was viewed 92 times.
To be fair, however, I ran view statistics for 10 random articles to see if the Blair Holt article received more views. Of the 10 I looked up, only two got more hits. This is hardly enough for a true statistical comparison, but it would indicate that the article was getting more hits than the majority of Wikipedia articles. This seems to indicate notability.
Next I went to Google to see how many Web hits I would get if I looked it up. For Blair Holt bill, I get 1,120,000 hits. I went to Google News and discovered there have been thousands of news stories on the bill as well.
As a final note, I was at the Utah State Republican convention where it was brought up and discussed by Rep. Jason Chaffetz, which indicates that despite the fact that there is only one sponsor, the bill is receiving considerable buzz in congress.
The bill is notable for another reason. It delegates powers reserved for the congress in the Constitution (the right to make laws) to one person, namely the Attorney General.
Given all this, I can only conclude that the article, and the bill are indeed notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia.
Thanks for your consideration,
J appleseed2 (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for June 2009
The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter Issue 27 - June 2009 | |
|
|
SoxBot (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
NJ Gubernatorial 2009
Willoughby - I understand your argument, but I'm not sure I agree with what you have done over at NJE2009, the labels "Major" and "Minor" are (widely held) opinion and have no legal meaning. I do agree that Mr. Daggett, by virtue of qualifying for matching funds, probably should be treated differently than the other Independents - in fact I was struggling with how to deal with it when I came across your entry there. HerbertMMarx (talk) 05:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Christie's link to the Mafia etc.
Willoughby - I am not sure how bolding the date of an event is considered vandalism. This article is very long and bolding the date /main headline allows readers to find particular information by scanning the article. You also removed the blurb about the Christie family link to NJ mafia citing it is defamatory. While it may be defamtory, its the truth and as the blurb stated something he hid from the FBI during their background check of him for the AG job.
- 68.46.132.117, thanks for voicing your concerns. First of all, let me address your bolding of certain phrases in New Jersey gubernatorial election, 2009. While I assume good faith, I think it was pretty clear from the phrases you chose to bold that you were editing with an anti-Christie agenda. However, regardless of whether that's true or not, bolding phrases like that to "allow readers to find particular information by scanning the article" is fine for a blog post that's pushing a particular point of view but it's not okay for a neutrally written encyclopedia entry. Therefore, your bolding of certain phrases was not appropriate.
- The paragraphs about Chris Christie's familial link to the Mafia, which you added to Christopher J. Christie and New Jersey gubernatorial election, 2009, were apparently libellous or defamatory when I first came across them, hence my reversions. It was also difficult to determine quickly whether or not they were libellous or defamatory because they were improperly cited, either citing blog posts (which failed to meet WP:RS) or failing to cite specific sources at all. When you add material to Wikipedia, you must cite reliable sources; if you add uncited or poorly cited material to a biography of a living person, it will probably be removed, especially if it can be considered controversial. The "Mafia link" paragraphs certainly could.
- However, I now see that you've added the "Mafia link" paragraphs back into the Christopher J. Christie article, this time citing reliable sources. I appreciate that. Unfortunately it seems to me that those paragraphs are not written from an entirely neutral point of view, and I'm concerned that the additions give the issue undue weight. I'll fix them up in the near future – probably tomorrow. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- A Stop at Willoughby Thanks for the clarification, as you are probably aware new contributors such as myself are not aware of the intricate details. I looked up libelous here and it stated that defamatory comments could not be made unless they were truthful. As you noted the paragraphs are not entirely written from a neutral point of view, but when you are dealing with something a defamatory as a major candidates connection to the mafia, its not easy to be neutral. Even downplaying the connection gives a point of view slanted toward Christie and disfavors his opponents. I appreciate you taking the time to make the references more neutral as my personal bias toward Christie makes it difficult to present such a view.
- However, since the election is only about two weeks away, I appreciate you making the changes at your earliest convenience so readers can be made aware of the connection and be given the opportunity to form their own opinion on the subject.
- 68.46.132.117, don't worry about it. Wikipedia policy is almost overwhelmingly massive and it takes a while to get a good grasp of it. I agree that it is not easy to be neutral on this subject, but I believe that the edits I've made at Christopher J. Christie today have done a decent job of keeping a neutral tone and not giving the topic undue weight. For example, instead of saying that Christie "failed to disclose" his familial tie with a mobster, it now says that he "did not raise the issue." I'm not seeking to downplay the connection to try and benefit his opponents; I'm just trying to keep it as neutral and unencyclopedic as possible.
- Hopefully you're okay with my changes. And if not, feel free to make some more changes of your own; be bold. And if you live in NJ like I do, don't forget to vote in two weeks. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for July 2009
The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter Issue 28 - July 2009 | |
|
Guitarherochristopher and Andrzejbanas joined the alternative music fold during July.
|
SoxBot (talk) 08:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
NJ government info
Yes, I've found such info in NJ articles, and because they're not relevant to those articles, I've removed them. Correct me if I'm wrong but "It's standard" just seems like a euphemism for "that's the way it is", when we should be discussing whether it's "the way it should be". Obviously, information that does not pertain to an article's subject does not belong in that article. It's one thing to mention that Bayonne is in the tenth and thirteenth Congressional districts and 31st legislative district, and that a resident is one of its representatives in that district. It's completely another to digress to an explanation of those districts, because the article isn't about them. It's about Bayonne. Any information that does not pertain to Bayonne has no business in the article. The information I removed, and which you restored, mentioned Tom DeGise, John Corzine, and several other people that have nothing to do with Bayonne. The only information that should be mentioned is what districts Bayonne is in, and any natives who represent it. The rest belongs only in articles that are about those districts. Nightscream (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, both govern Bayonne, and mentioning the district in which they do so is the only manner in which that information bears upon that particular city. Further information explaining the structure of the district, however, does not. That info belongs in an article on that district. Let me know where the discussion is once you've begun it. Nightscream (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for August 2009
The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter Issue 29 - August 2009 | |
|
Dylan620, SteelersFan UK06, Guitarherochristopher and Thatguykalem joined the alternative music fold during August.
|
SoxBot (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Rollback
added it for you -- Samir 20:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks very much, Samir. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Willoughby! ...Willoughby! ...Willoughby, sir? (Sorry, just had to. Great episode!) decltype (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, absolutely. A true classic. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Willoughby! ...Willoughby! ...Willoughby, sir? (Sorry, just had to. Great episode!) decltype (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
User:Fester Smith
How about a comment on the current CheckUser sock case? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The abominable Wiki troll --UnquestionableTruth-- 03:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I added a comment, and I'll be sure to comment if there's anything else of value that I can add. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Processed cheese
Technically speaking, many people would regard my edit as accurate information. But I understand Wikipedia must try to retain a neutral point of view, so it had to be reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.136.30 (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly; it's an opinion and/or a joke edit, and while it may be funny or even accurate in your opinion, it's not a proper part of an encyclopedia. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Honest services fraud
Hello! Your submission of Honest services fraud at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Geraldk (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Honest services fraud
Royalbroil 14:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Addison's disease in canines
SoWhy 08:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
I just want to thank you for this [1] and this [2]. It was quick and professional. Tymek (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
You marked the page ACW TLC with G1. This article has information. In the future, mark articles like this as A1. A1 says that the article doesn't have enough information to identify its subject. Btilm 04:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- I must appoligize. I get those two confused because they both end in 1. Btilm 04:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Malware?
One thought occurred to me as to the politickernj security issue. It is certainly plausible that the owner may not be aware of the security considerations involved or, less likely but still plausible, that his website might have been compromised in some way. Perhaps a heads-up might be appreciated. McAfee SiteAdvisor has an appeal process for website owners which he/she might wish to pursue.
One thing fersure, the "Warning: Dangerous Downloads" label attached to a SiteAdvisor enhanced Yahoo or Google search for politickernj is not something I'd want associated with my website. As you source from there frequently, perhaps you'd like to advise the owner? JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Men's News Daily
I understand the WP:WEB criteria to mean a site or its content "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Maybe I'm reading the criteria for notability too narrowly, but can you point out any published accounts about the site or its content from reliable secondary sources? The article doesn't. Thanks, VegetativePup (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Fribbulus Xax's RfA
FYI
In case you missed it. Tan | 39 04:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
NFCC
You may want to adjust your comment here as the file appears to fail WP:NFCC#10C.--Rockfang (talk) 06:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You tagged this article as a copyvio, but it wasn't that, because the source is a copy from Wikipedia and carries a GFDL release. I have deleted the article anyway under A7, but looking more closely G3 "hoax" would have been appropriate because it is a straight copy of our existing article Neil Fallon with only the name changed! Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- You are correct; thanks for catching my mistake. That's what I get for patrolling new pages at an ungodly hour of the morning. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
CSD
Sorry, I thought he was trying to remove the tag itself (I always forget about G7!) Thanks for telling me!-- fetchcomms☛ 22:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Anti-turkism
What is not constructive is I believe most of the content in that page. Please note that Wikipedia is not a hate site. There are plenty of them out there on the web. Users are welcome to contribute flaming content to those websites, but not to Wikipedia. --Muratkaval (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- I know that Wikipedia is not a hate site, and I have no personal interest in preserving or removing any content of the article in question. However, when making even the most remotely controversial removals of large chunks of content, please do use edit summaries. Otherwise it looks as though you're trying to vandalize and/or edit war blindly. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't misrepresent what others say
Why don't you stay out of discussions in which you're unwilling to find out what they're about? You wrote:
- Frankly, redirects are so easy to re-create if the article is re-created, this is a non-issue.
I was talking about redirects created for pre-emptive purposes, when their target has never existed. I explained why they should exist. If you disagree, why don't you deal with that? If I create several hundred such links (as indeed I did, before the putative policy was put there without proper consensuss), is it easy for me to recreate them AFTER the MERGE issue arises, which would have been prevented by such redirects? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- I did not intentionally misrepresent what you said; I merely misunderstood it. Please assume good faith. I responded to your arguments at the discussion at WT:CSD. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I've been working on a series of articles on the subject of Roman names. Yesterday three articles, on the praenomina Manius, Marcus, and Mettius, were tagged as stubs. I believe they should not be considered stubs. Although most of the articles contain only a few paragraphs, they were intended to be reasonably comprehensive without becoming highly technical. It would be difficult to provide more detail from any readily-available source; even the most extensive classical reference encyclopedias don't contain as much information about these names. I'd like to request that the stub tag be removed from these articles. P Aculeius (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for calling my attention to that. My cursory examination of the articles earlier led me to believe that they were stubs, as they seemed as though they might have been too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of their subjects. But as their creator, you obviously know more about the subjects than I do. If you feel that an stub-tagged article provides encyclopedic coverage of a subject, you are always free to remove the stub tag, as you were in this case. Anyway, I've removed the tags. Keep up the good article work! A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm still pretty new to writing for Wikipedia, and I don't really know much about the editing protocols. I thought there might have been an important reason for tagging them that I didn't know about, or that if I removed the tags they'd simply be put back with a warning not to remove them again. I need to get used to the idea of other people editing and revising my work, since it's going to happen, whether I like it or not. But in any case, I thought it was best to let you know what I wanted to do before doing it myself. Thank you again! P Aculeius (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- No problem, and thanks again for your good article work. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Merge discussion for Wikipedia:Section
An article that you have been involved in editing, Wikipedia:Section , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. – imis☂ 01:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
re: your message
Hi A Stop at Willoughby, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 talk 18:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
CSD tagging
Hi A Stop at Willoughby, I've been deleting some of the articles you've been tagging for speedy deletion, and I noticed several where you didn't warn the author that you'd tagged their article. Most CSd tags generate the code for a tag that you can just cut and paste onto the author's talkpage. ϢereSpielChequers 19:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- You're right; I apologize. I usually do cut-and-paste the warnings over, but the volume of new articles pouring in just a few minutes ago was rather high. Sorry for my negligence; I've gone through and issued the appropriate warnings. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks and happy editing ϢereSpielChequers 20:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- All in day's work. Thanks for the WikiBeer, and for the understanding. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
Thanks for moving Articles for deletion/Downtown Norwich to the correct venue. Cnilep (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Gideon Encarnacion
Hi there. I noticed your tagging of Gideon Encarnacion as A3 (no content). Please note what it says on Special:Newpages: "articles should not be tagged for speedy deletion as having no context (CSD A1) or no content (CSD A3) moments after creation." You tagged this article three minutes after creation. The reason for this note is that new users may not understand that their contributions are live as soon as they hit "Save". After a few minutes (at least five, I'd say), it's OK to tag the article. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I believe it was added recently. I sometimes make the same mistake, and it wit a hard habit to break. Regards, Mm40 (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I have declined your G3 speedy and PRODded the article instead, as I am not sure it is quite obvious that it is a hoax, though a quick source didn't find me any confirmation. Peć is real and was in the Ottoman Empire at the time; it's not impossible that a revolt could have set up a "republic" and the Ottomans taken a few years to get round to squashing it. I will ask the author for sources and AfD it if none are produced and the PROD gets removed. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- I take it back, with apologies: I wasn't aware of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republik of Peć.
I will take up your AIV report again.He has been blocked indef by Toddst1. JohnCD (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Brian P. Stack
Hi. I know altering in the information in article Infoboxes can be tricky, and sometimes result in errors like this one, so please make sure to use the Preview function when doing so, and/or checking afterwards to make sure that the edit smoothly. If it doesn't, it's a good idea to either revert your edit, or contact someone with expertise with Infoboxes, and ask them to fix it, which is what I do. Thanks. Happy Holidays! Nightscream (talk) 23:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing that; I'm much obliged. Happy holidays to you, too. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
RfA thankspam
Hello, A Stop at Willoughby! This is just a note thanking you for participating in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with a total of 93 support !votes, 1 oppose and 3 editors remaining neutral. While frankly overwhelmed by the level of support, I humbly thank the community for the trust it has placed in me, and vow to use the tools judiciously and without malice. |
- Congrats! Replied at your talk page. A Stop at Willoughby ([[User talk:A Stop at
Willoughby|talk]]) 03:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- I know; the PSA was actually intended for the public, i.e. the 30 users whose talk pages got screwed up. Congrats on the RfA again. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009
- From the editors: 250th issue of the Signpost
- Editorial: A digital restoration
- Election report: ArbCom election in full swing
- Interview: Interview with David G. Post
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
RfA Thanks
MrKIA11 (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- You're very welcome. Congratulations on gaining adminship; you've earned it. I'm glad to see you cleaning out C:SD already. Keep up the good work! A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Wkicommons
Ok the page was already deleted by the time I got your message but thanks for telling me, I just wanted to make that article because I typed in 'Wkicommons' accidentally when I was trying to get to the page on Wikicommons so I made the redirect just in case anyone else made that mistake, just trying to make Wikipedia flow better... but I don't think I should recreate the page as there is a banner saying not to recreate the page with the same content. Thanks. Iminrainbows (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, to be fair it was a pretty implausible typo, especially since the typo was for the title of a redirect page and not the actual target page. Anyway, you're welcome for the notice. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Fabius Aconius Catullinus Philomathius
May I ask why you tagged the article Fabius Aconius Catullinus Philomathius as a stub? The definition of stub is: an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information, and it should be capable of expansion"; as far as I know those are all the informations about this politician, so no further expansion might be possible. --TakenakaN (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, in my view the article might not have be long enough to be termed full encyclopedic coverage. However, if you feel there is no potential for expansion, I'll remove the tag. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Could you please look at the talk page of the page you've just tagged here? The webpage's own content is copied from another WP page that I branched this text from. This is the second tag, third strike and you could just delete the page. --Djihed (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm. I thought you'd copied it over from Freebase, which contains some Wikipedia content but is not solely comprised of it. We need to sort this out to avoid GFDL problems; I've replied at Talk:Wafaa (name). A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009
- Election report: Voting closes in the Arbitration Committee Elections
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Happy Holidays
The site in question http://www.softcom.net/users/whiskeystill/SJhistory.htm also derived their text from http://www.sanjuan.edu/NewSanJuan.cfm?subpage=75204, so I can't really be said to have a copyright issue with softcom.net site. We both got out info from San Juan's site independently.
Please let me know what I can do to fix this as I am interested in incorporating the content in a non-copyright way and the San Juan site appears to be the only source of this limited information. And, as you noted before you tagged the information, I cited the San Juan article in question.
Any advice would be appreciated. Moogwrench (talk) 01:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- I appreciate the advice, but am still kind of confused. If I took the information directly from the San Juan site, and I cited it, is that a copyvio? It appears that the softcom.net site took the information directly from the San Juan website: http://www.sanjuan.edu/NewSanJuan.cfm?subpage=75204 Thanks in anticipation. Moogwrench (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- OK, thank you for the clarification. I will rewrite the history, and put it under the alternate page link. Thanks! Moogwrench (talk) 03:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Drew Sheneman
Materialscientist (talk) 03:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi!
Thank you for your contributions to WP:SCV. If you didn't know already, there's a template called Template:SCV that might be helpful for you. :) Regards, Theleftorium 19:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)