User talk:MSGJ/2008

Thanks for the welcome

Hi, thanks for the welcome. I'll look through those articles :) --Firehazrd (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation links to redirect pages

Hiya. Re your comment, it wasn't really related to redirect pages. Just to be sure we're talking the same terminology here, I refer to a redirect as a page with a #REDIRECT line which jumps to another article, and an alias as a 'piped' link - i.e. 'Fred Bloggs and his Amazing Chipmunks#1970-1980|A load of Nuts' - in this case, I'd call 'A load of Nuts' the alias. What I was trying to explain in this case was that the last editor of the article had set up a piped link (an alias) for the Scott Kannberg article, and this is (apparently) not the approved method according to Piping. The link should actually refer to Scott Kannberg, and not the nickname - which is what I changed it to. Of course, I could be wrong !! :-) I agree with you about redirects though - assuming it avoids a double redirect. Let me know if I;ve misunderstood what you were saying :-) Regards CultureDrone (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi CultureDrone, thanks for your reply. There was no piping here. Before your edit the link was as follows:

• Spiral Stairs, nickname of Scott Kannberg

You changed this to

• "Spiral Stairs", nickname of Scott Kannberg

Spiral Stairs is a redirect page to Scott Kannberg. The former *might* be argued to be slightly clearer since, although it links to a redirect page, it consists the disambiguation title. Anyway it's splitting hairs. MSGJ (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

And I want to keep the hair I have thanks ! :-) CultureDrone (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Rayspan metamaterial inputs

This was our first time adding content to Wikipedia and didn't know the guidelines. We still think that your readers are entitled to know that Metamaterial is not a research concept like your website is currently reflecting but rather it has been accepted by leading industry companies as viable technology to improve the performance of certain consumer products. All the "Development and applications" examples your website provides are primitive and based on pure research. This is why it is a big deal when the first consumer products based on Metamaterial appear in stores. Even the University Research institutions and grateful that Rayspan took the risk of innovating in this space to meet consumer requirements.

Do you think adding the paragraph below under the statement "Metamaterials have been also proposed for designing agile antennas [13]." is acceptable. Please note that we removed all links because I certain that interested readers can find us and our products easily on the web.

"Rayspan Corporation is the world's leading innovator of Metamaterial air interface solutions for commercial wireless communications. Rayspan air interface solutions provide breakthrough improvements in antenna and RF front-end component miniaturization, performance, cost reduction and ease of manufacturing. Products with Rayspan proprietary Metamaterial technology have been successfully adopted by consumers."

Please let me know is this works.

Thanks, Ajay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajayg rs (talk • contribs) 19:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

From Borat

wat do you mean? can you please give me an example? —Preceding unsigned comment added by U-borat (talk • contribs) 14:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Melanie Mcguire

Melanie Mcguire was 38 weeks pregnant and married when she started an affiar with Bradley Miller. It has been quoted in every major newspaper in NJ.Why would my post be editied to say otherwise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Army4all (talk • contribs) 17:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I do not know how to site a source on here. This is from teh Home News which states Melanoe Mcguire was pregnant,married and had an affair at teh same time.

During the trial the state presented as a witness Dr. Bradley Miller, with whom McGuire worked at the Reproductive Medicine Associates office in Morris town.

The two had a sexual relationship that began in 2002, when McGuire was pregnant with her second child. The state argued that she wanted her husband dead to begin a new life with Miller.

http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070423/NEWS/70423012 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Army4all (talk • contribs) 17:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Essex County pages linked to esseximages.com

Hi,

Regarding adding external links to towns in Essex County (Gloucester, MA, Marblehead, MA, Salem, MA, etc). The esseximages.com site offers an amazing collection of Historic Photographs of each town not available anywhere else for people to see.

I was not trying to spam un-related links, just trying to point folks to what I think is an amazing resource for historic photographs of their area. I tried to readjust the link to go straight to the relevant section of the site (Marblehead photos for Marblehead etc).

Please let me know if the new link helps?

Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsbr08 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Muse Invincible Edit

Sorry about the lack of cite on my edit, I unfortunately don't have any physical evidence of this =( I guess it isn't that important anyway =P Sorry about the inconvienience.

Lewis

---

Scottish Rugby Union

You reverted an edit about the CEO of SRU, saying this was vandalism. This was in fact a genuine and correct edit, with more up to date information than was displayed previously. It doesn't help the community if you revert changes without even thinking about it or checking.

Sorry I was a bit hasty here. Your IP address does have a history of vandalism and I jumped to (wrong) conclusion in this case. MSGJ (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright

{{helpme}} Can anyone tell me, in which situations should I tag page with {{copyvio}} and when I should use the speedy delete tag {{db-copyvio}}. I have used the latter a few times now, but am not sure if the former is more appropriate. Thanks. MSGJ (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Use {{db-copyvio}} if the page is patently (that is, without any question) a copyvio; there is no non-infringing content on either the page itself, or in the history, worth saving; the material was introduced at once by a single person; and there is no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license. Note that saying the page is "my own," is not such a credible assertion. For example, a user's myspace page is copyrighted. Even if they say "but it's my page", the page remains copyrighted. Likewise if they say "but it's my website", and that website doen't release it into the public domain or the content under the GFDL or contains a copyright notice on it, you can still tag it. If it doesn't meet these bases (the vast majority of copyvios do), and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, then blank the page's content, add {{copyright}}, list at that day's copyright problems page (instructions and a link will be in the tag, today's, as an example, is here) and warn the user (such as with {{Nothanks-drm}}).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed answer. Much appreciated. I can't envisage any situation when it would be more appropriate to use {{copyright}} rather than {{db-copyvio}}. It's either a copyright violation or it's not, and in all cases you would check the history for a better version before tagging. (I see you've said that the vast majority of cases would be the speedy tag.) anyway, thanks again. MSGJ (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. They do come. up. For example, a few months ago I came across a page tagged with db-copyvio during CAT:CSD patrol, but took it to copyright problems when I discovered that the website had released the material under the creative commons license (the question was, was that comparable to a GFDL release, and thus usable?). Or you may come across a page that is copied from a government site—sometimes such content is free, and sometimes not. A third (and probably most common) situation is when material has been edited for a few days or longer before the copyvio is discovered--the content has been changed but has it been changed enough to no longer be a copyvio? Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandals and blocks

Thanks for your efforts to fight vandalism! Could I make a suggestion though? When you have given a last warning, the next time we have to see a block. Otherwise we are making a mockery of our warnings! I'm talking about [1]. This one may have just slipped through the net! Best wishes, MSGJ (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. However, if you'll check the dates on the original edits, you'll see that my later comments were about edits I discovered the person had made before the level 4 warning. Doczilla (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Having said that, though, I rearranged the order of the warnings.[2] Doczilla (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay fair enough. It's arguable that there's no point giving warnings for things in the past when they've already been warning more recently. Anyway, cheers, keep it up! MSGJ (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Arguable - definitely. In that particular case, I was concerned that someone might feel the level 4 warning had been too strong. In fact, I was concerned about it myself and was contemplating lowering it to level 3 when I saw those previous edits which had been vandalism also. So posting warnings about them bolstered the need for a level 4 warning (which brings us back to the fact that, yes, the level 4 warning looks better positioned under those other warnings). Incidentally, it's nice to cross paths with you. Vandal fighting is a weird way to pass our time, and a huge portion of the communication related to it comes from the vandals. Doczilla (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know what you mean! I'm not sure how worthwhile my time spent on this is. Personally I think only registered users should be allowed to edit; this would cut down on vandalism by 50-75% I reckon. It would be better if we were contributing to articles instead of just reverting. MSGJ (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Something else we agree on: One of my userboxes states flatly that I think only registered users should edit. That would vastly reduce impulse vandalism. Doczilla (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am returning to the margin because it is becoming almost unreadable when I use my PDA (one word per line)! Yes, that's a nifty box. I haven't gone in for these boxes yet, but if I ever do, this will be the first one I use :) Do you think, that by helping with vandalism-fighting we are sustaining the project on its current anyone-can-edit policy and just delaying the day that this stops? Part of the magic of the project is the anyone-can-edit policy, but I still think that reverting it will be of enormous benefit overall. We would certainly get fewer edits, but not so many fewer conctructive edits, I believe, for if anyone is keen to contribute then a 5 minute registration is not going to put them off. MSGJ (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Kurt Weber

In answer to your question [3], Kurt Weber has opposed many self-nominated RfAs. For an example, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AKeen. Cheers, Darkspots (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! Now I see what you mean in this case ... but you wouldn't go along with his rationale in the situation of AKeen, would you? MSGJ (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't know, I paid no attention to that RFA. I just pulled it out of Kurt's user contributions. I answered your question because you left it on an RFA that had been closed [4], so I figured a good chance existed that no other editor would see it. Darkspots (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Apology of vandalism at a page of Tsutomu Miyazaki

Hello, Mr. MSGJ. I'm very sorry to have vandalized page of Tsutomu Miyazaki. I'll never vandalize again. Please forgive me. Thank you. --210.237.34.201 (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, don't worry about it. I look forward to seeing some constructive contributions in the future! Best wishes, MSGJ (talk) 11:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

) --The.Filsouf (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

re: 142.X editor

142.X is an IP sock for blocked editor User:Mark753. He has been stalking my friend User:KnowledgeofSelf for quite some time and I have, on several occasions, had to revert his trolling from KOS's talk page along with several other pages. Perhaps you should have taken the time to ask me why I removed the trolls comments rather than restoring them... just so KOS or someone else will have to go back and remove them. 156.34.208.112 (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

But unless you can prove sockpuppetry you can't treat 142.x any differently to any other editor. Is this just a suspicion you have? MSGJ (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You can ask KOS about it. He is more than familiar with Mark753 and has assisted myself and other editors in picking off both his IPs (all from the same range) and his bogus accounts simply because he frequents the same pages over and over... especially KOS's talk page which is always a prime target. 156.34.208.112 (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Msgj, you should've assumed good faith and asked why 156.34.x was reverting the edits instead of using an imperative term such as "stop". It is better to ask rather than assume authority, friend. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 13:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep out of this. It seemed on the face of it a case of one user bullying another, but I'm willing to accept there may be much more going on here. So, apologies to 156.34.208.112. MSGJ (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, you were mistaken with your revert on my talk page. User:156.34.208.112 was removing comments from a banned user who was circumventing his block to troll my talk page. No he wasn't blocked yet, but he is now. User:142.162.196.74 is Mark753. Anyhow I suggest you retract your warning to 156.34.208.112 as he was correct to remove those comments. Thanks KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 14:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahh I missed the discussion above. My apologies for starting a new section. You can merge the sections together if you like. Cheers. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 14:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Beaten to it by 156. MSGJ (talk) 12:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Undoing your John D. Rockefeller revert.

The difference between July 8, 1839 and May 23, 1937 is 26 months shy of 100 years. Aliby22 (talk) 10:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right; my apologies. I see that this was changed by a number of anonymous editors yesterday. It went through the following stages:

26 months shy of 100th birthday

26 months shy of 98th birthday

2 months shy of 98th birthday

2 months shy of 100th birthday

Personally I think the third one is correct and the clearest. MSGJ (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you on that. Feel free to change it if you haven't already. Aliby22 (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Mikhaïl Bezverkhny

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Mikhaïl Bezverkhny, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.newconsonantmusic.com/performers/bezverkhny.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

From 211.30.68.97

Sorry about that

hmmm i looked at the stuff is a huge list of people really needed?

loopa is removing a whole heap of info but not saying why —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.68.97 (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Undoing revert on H&M

Did you read the section you reverted? Please see the talk page for explanation on why section "Controversy" was removed before reverting and restoring it. Thank you! Elysianfields (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't read it too closely and no I didn't read the discussion page. I was on RC patrol and it just looked like a large portion of the article removed without an informative edit summary. Therefore I reverted it. Having read the discussion I completely agree with you. MSGJ (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:cleanup-reorganize documented as you requested.

It's now in Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. I noticed too late that it might overlap/conflict with Template:Cleanup-restructure, although I think that sounds more forbidding. The cleanup-reorganize message is designed to encourage WP:BOLD editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.210.146 (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry. I read through all those templates as well before creating the new one and didn't notice it! Anyway it gives editors more choice. MSGJ (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

David Goldstein

Dear MSGJ, - Thank you for approving the article. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.177.244.78 (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Enemy Swim Lake

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Enemy Swim Lake, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.sdglaciallakes.com/AboutUs/Legends/EnemySwim/Index.cfm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:AFC

Sure, it depends on if i am using the script (which can be found here) or not. If i am using Firefox or IE then i use the script and it auto closes the submission for me. But when i am not using the script i close it myself, and the form in which i do that changes (it depends on which template i can remember off the top of my head). I would recommend using the script as it does it for you nice and easy. If you have any more questions, or if i just confused you even more let me know and i will do my best to help. Cheers! Tiptoety ^talk 23:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Wow, that's so cool! MSGJ (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol, glad you liked it. Happy editing! Tiptoety ^talk 23:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to add an extra comment, you just go in and edit it again I suppose. I notice it even leaves an informative edit summary. Very impressed. MSGJ (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I have never really found a need to go back and add a extra comment, the ones the script places on there are very good. Yes, the edit summary is nice too. Tiptoety ^talk 23:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes if someone has put a lot of effort in, but it doesn't quite make the grade, I'm tempted to give more feedback than just the standard message. But in most cases the standard one is fine! MSGJ (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you for helping me become a better vandal fighter. Your tips came in very handy! If you have anymore tips for me, I would really appreciate the help. Dragana666 (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I just requested the rollback tool a few minutes ago. It seems very handy, but I'm not sure if I'll be allowed to get it... But even if I can't get it, I'll still help out on Wikipedia! It's a great site. Dragana666 (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say I have no idea what the article is about, but you seem to have it under control... I'll help out when and where I can, though. Dragana666 (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am. I was really surprised to have recieved it, but it has made my job simpler. Dragana666 (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotection

I'm a frequent listener to WNST and I know Nestor personally, and I want to know what he did to cause THIS? Seriously though, you're welcome for the heads up! Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I certainly did, read my talk page where I'm talking to Caknuck about it. As for the terms, they are both insults, and rather crude ones at that. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The whole "douche" thing is certainly an insult. "Babyarm", however, is a catchphrase used by hosts/listeners of KTCK that's evolved into a bizarre greeting. Don't ask how it came to be that way, because it loses a lot in the telling ;) Caknuck (talk) 14:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

From Asrok

STOP' I'M THE BEST I WILL BE GOOD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asrok (talk • contribs) 16:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. Take care! AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks for the star! MSGJ (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The person was blocked and has made a new user account. It's your name, plus an "a." Msgja.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal?

Thanks for your comments on my removal of text without comments. I wanted to remove comments that had been rejected. Please let me know th eproper procedure. Thanks. Also, can I undo your undo to retrieve my correction which was fully commented on and which you also deleted with the undo - it takes a lot of work to get the math comments correctly done and I don't want al lthat time to go down the drain. Thanks!!!! TwPx —Preceding unsigned comment added by TwPx (talk • contribs) 16:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

== or ===

(reply to your message)

My mistake. When I saved my changes, it was an edit conflict, and I missed your correction in the merge. I've adding your correction back in. Thanks for catching it!

Also thanks for adding categories to new pages. There are lots that need it, and it seems like a hard task. I've been erring on too many categories, rather than too few. My hope is that wikiprojects use the categories to decide which articles are relevant. More (relevant) categories means that it is more likely a (relevant) project will see it. I only mention it because your radiologist category was a better choice than my additions, but I wasn't sure which to remove. I think it should be ok to leave that to a wikiproject member? JackSchmidt (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and you ARE a project member and knew about the article from its most recent creation. Sorry for the trouble. JackSchmidt (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not a member of any project actually. I was just responding to a request at AfC. I find categories difficult actually and I'm never sure how to search for the most suitable. I often use the CategoryTree but the search facility is not very good. Do you know anything better? MSGJ (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I find assigning stub categories is a little easier, since the stub "tree" is much more like a tree. The full page is too large to load often, but I use Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types and open each common sub-page in its own tab.

Just assigning stubs worries me a little, and sometimes an article is clearly, clearly not a stub, so I try to assign normal categories too. I use a saved copy of http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/CategoryOverview_EN_Complete.htm (64MB) from CatOverview. I have it open in my web browser, but I also use a command line tool like grep to perform quicker searches with all the results together. I search for "ger.*med" and find a few plausible categories, then refine to more specific categories. I think CategoryTree looks like a nice way to refine the category once you've found a decent approximation, but it doesn't surprise you with other possibilities. I've done a few German beer articles, and at first searched under food, but then under germany, and then under corporations. Each time I found different "good" categories. How can you know when to stop?

I try to follow the librarian convention: a category should be exactly as specific as the work as a whole. However, wikipedia's categories have grown organically and so this is not always as easy as using LCSH (and that is not always easy to begin with!). I also try to follow the librarian convention on when to stop: there are more books than can be cataloged, but poor cataloging is useless, so spend only enough time to give moderately good cataloging. For example, I just left my extra categories, since it would have taken too much time (total) to fix it.

Let me know when you find better methods! I used to only edit the math articles, since those were the only ones where I could keep all the rules in my head, but now I really enjoy helping new articles. JackSchmidt (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Jack! I'll let you know how I get on. MSGJ (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The Club-Footed Grocer

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Club-Footed Grocer, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of The Club-Footed Grocer. KurtRaschke (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Helenaarlock

I deleted User:Helenaarlock as advertising. Thanks for the heads-up. NawlinWiki (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Arbonne International

An article that you have been involved in editing, Arbonne International, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbonne International. Thank you. Argyriou (talk) 06:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Space powers

If redirecting article for wide-using term nuclear powers in plural form exists in Wiki distinctly from article for term nuclear power, so redirecting article for similar wide-using term space powers may presents (irrespectively of unused term space power moreover). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.232.124.119 (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm not convinced. Let me think more. MSGJ (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

David Dawson (choreographer)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of David Dawson (choreographer), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.semperoper.de/en/ballett/repertoire_david_dawson.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

It wasn't much help because i had done it purposefully but thanks anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chubbennaitor (talk • contribs) 12:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

From Ztm423

You must know of Zachery Michael, I would appreciate you not deleting his name off of Cheraw South Carolina. Oprah Winfrey, Paula Deen, John Edwards, Barack & Michelle Obama, Fred Thompsonm Judge Judy, Cyndi Lauper & David Thornton, Senators Demint, graham, dole; Gov. Sanford. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ztm423 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough I do not know of Zachery Michael, although I suspect he is you. Please do not add information to Wikipedia about yourself or others you are closely connected to. MSGJ (talk) 11:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

David Patchen

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article David Patchen, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AFC Backlog Drive

WikiProject Articles for creation needs your help!

WikiProject Articles for creation has done a tremendous job in working at WP:AFC over the past 7½ months. Thank you all for your hard work and dedication! Together, we've made the submission process easier and more streamlined, developed tools to make the process go faster for reviewers, and cut the backlog down to a mere fraction of what it once was. Well done! As you all are aware, however, our work is not quite yet done. The project still has 10 archive pages left to complete, which include over half a month's worth of submissions, many of which have not been completely reviewed. We need your help to finish looking over these neglected submissions so that we can finally remove the backlog notice from the page, and put an end to the more than two year old backlog that has been a thorn in our side for ages! Participants will receive an AFC Barnstar, so hurry up and help out while there's still work to be done! Make sure to sign in on the WikiProject's talk page so we know who is involved in what promises to be our final effort to complete this goal. Thank you for all your help! - Happy editing as always, Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You are receiving this letter because you are listed as a participant in the Articles for creation WikiProject at WP:WPAFC. To avoid receiving further notices, please remove your name from the list. Thanks!

AFC creation of Nyima Funk

You recently created the article Nyima Funk per an AFC request. Large portions of that entry is a copyvio (direct copy/paste) from the sources cited. I'm currently cleaning up the article (rather than just doing a speedy delete on it), but please be careful not to violate copyright by proxy when creating new articles. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 22:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. MSGJ (talk) 09:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Damien Sandras

Per your request, I've made a copy of deleted Damien Sandras at User:MSGJ/Damien Sandras. Categories, interwiki, and stub tags are commented out. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, as you said, the major difference is a few sources - and those are less sources than interviews. Otherwise, the content doesn't assert any more notability than it did when it was deleted a year ago. The creating IP is vaguely similar to an editing IP in the deleted version so I'll bet there is some WP:COI as well. It seems destined for WP:AFD again. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Per your request I have userified the material you requested as well. See my talk page for details. Please answer there if further action is needed. ++Lar: t/c 20:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

GRO J1655-40

Thank you, I have added it to my watchlist, and will see if I can incorporate as much as usefully possible from that talk material into into the article when I get a chance. I'm a gamma-ray astronomer working on a project to analyze CGRO data from it and other BH candidates, so I am very interested, but have tunnel vision due to our somewhat peculiar perspective. Anyhow, it is a very famous object in certain circles. Cheers, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I know sometimes I may have erred, not knowing some Wikipedia's rules (like the one that says you aren't supposed to edit a page more than three times a day), but I struggled to edit based only on reliable sources. Sometimes this is not liked by some Romanian editors, and it's a pity there're almost no non-Romanian and non-Moldovan editing Moldova-related articles to have a neutral and clear mind to judge on the legitimity of the disputes. I'm not saying Romanian are unable to reasonate, just that they are biased, because they are teached in school that only Soviets and Communists acknowledge the existence of the Moldovan people and language. (And in a post-totalitarian regime, especially when the regime was a harsh one, like Ceausescu's, people tend to believe that if a Communist ever supported a thing, that thing is inherently evil and must be fought with whatever means). Thanks for you advice. Xasha (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Biting

I don't see anything on the link you gave me which leads me to believe that I tagged an article for speedy deletion. I only tag articles fast when they are blatantly non-encyclopedic. Undeath (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and see if I can find that page again via admin help. It might have been late at night when I did that one. Undeath (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Declined article: Paul G. Gaffney

Msgj -

You have declined an category for retired admiral Paul G. Gaffney citing copyright infringement. I respectfully request you reconsider your decision.

You will observe that much of Admiral Gaffney's official biography comes from Federal Government sources. "Such works are not entitled to domestic copyright protection under U.S. law, sometimes referred to as "noncopyright."

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_of_the_United_States_Government.

I specifically refer to the sources used for the biographical entry: http://www.oceancommission.gov/commission/commissionbios.html#gaffney (Ocean Commission - Federal Government) http://www.ndu.edu/inss/symposia/jointops00/gaffney.html (National Defense University - Federal Government)

If you can cite material that falls under the category of original material which might fall under copyright, as opposed to statements of fact that appear on Federal Government sources, I will make tailored edits.

Thank you. Mike—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmaiden (talk • contribs) 01:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipages

Wikipedia is strictly buisness (mostly) which is why I am sending these messages to random people.

These listed Wikipages Need your help!

Whoever knows when Alf Schofield died please put in on the Alf Schofield page, that would really help.

Look at the Talk:Kangaroo (meat) page regarding my post- Kangaroo Species- that would really help.

Look at Talk:Katharine McPhee regarding her spouse under Relationships by Keane Rox.

For April 2007 Nor'easter well, I put in a fact and referenced it and now I don't know how to complete the reference. Click the blue 2 reference and you'll know what I mean. Then click the [2] at the top of the April 2007 Nor'easter article and complete the reference.

Spread the word for these Wikipages in need! That is all.

--RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Colonial Theatre, Idaho Falls

A tag has been placed on Colonial Theatre, Idaho Falls requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Berg Insight

A tag has been placed on Berg Insight requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. andy (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've prodded it per discussion on Talk page. Cheers. andy (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Çamëria

Sry. mate, I'm just wanted to add a picture of Çamëria.

But I dont no how i can do that, for that reason I coppied a other picture with the hope to know how to change the picture into the right one.

Could you show me how I can add a picture that is on my PC to Wikipedia

Best wishes Ban187

Berg Insight

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Berg Insight, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Presidents of Apulia

Simply because it will be part of more pages someday. As you can see, I am working on every single region of Italy. The model is Politics of Veneto, but, as I'm doing all the editing alone, it will take some time to finish the whole thing. If you want to help me with the articles about politics of Italian regions, you're welcome! --Checco (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk Page Vandalism

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my talk page.Inter16 (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You're most welcome. MSGJ (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Help Me Why was Gogen Yamaguchi article deleted, I do not understand

Could you please explain to me why the Gogen Yamaguchi article was deleted? Shizuoka_budoka 15:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Cartrawler

--62.77.183.209 (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)My article about cartrawler was deleted. The article was written in a similar style to Autoeurope which has been published on Wikipedia. Can you tell me where the article is going wrong and how I can be successful in getting it printed?--62.77.183.209 (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: csd g7

Hi there. These pages were created by User:KrimpBot as Tor nodes that are no longer Tor nodes. They have never edited, and due to recent software changes, they are no longer needed. After discussion with User:Krimpet, I began deleting the pages of users that had never edited that were 0 bytes in length. If you have any other questions, please let me know. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't definitively answer that question as there simply isn't a clear-cut response. Just today, a new Request for comment was started (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adminbots) which aims to clarify the issues surrounding admins and their use of automated and semi-automated (and manual) scripts. I invite (and urge) you to participate in the discussion. I will say that this is a long-standing issue in the community that has yet to be properly addressed (partly, I believe, due to the community's wishes to ignore the issue). So, as it stands, the situation is murky at best, though perhaps this new RfC will clarify some of the surrounding issues. I hope that this explanation helps. If not, feel free to ping me on my talk page and we can discuss this further. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's quite common for admins to use their own accounts for maintenance purposes such as this, and MZMcBride is far from the only admin to do so. Such automation is well known to many editors. The admin in question must always take responsibility for the edits, as MZMcBride has done. The reason that not everyone knows about the automated edits is simply that most of the editors who make them do so with amazing few complaints, so that there was never any reason to change the policy to cover them more explicitly. The RFC that MZMcBride linked to might help remedy that failure of the policy documents. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Could've sworn I replied already... sorry for the wait. I have to say that this isn't the first time this request has come up. Frankly, after thousands upon thousands of deletions, I'm sort of stuck with the bare minimum. It may be a bit compulsive, but my original justification for doing so was that I wanted to use the bare minimum as these pages all fall within the speedy deletion criteria and I couldn't bring myself to "clutter" the database with more text than what was absolutely needed. For better or for worse, I think that my deletion summaries won't really ever change. On rare occasion I have used longer summaries, but I haven't done so in a long while. While I think you may not agree with my decision, I hope you at least understand it and its rationale. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

ChunkIt! Question

Hi there,

I'm the author of the ChunkIt! article. I understand the notability requirements, as this article has been deleted before. However, I was hoping you could clarify why it is not notable, is it because the sources (quality, quantity?). I know you are a volunteer, however every comment I've received before has not been helpful in my understanding of why the article is being deleted (except for just stating lack of notability). Thanks so much. Mjbyrne (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, the article does not meet the criteria specified in the guideline wp:WEB in my opinion. If you read that page in detail it should help you to understand why. If you have any further questions, please ask. MSGJ (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverts...

Thanks for the hints, these features of Wikipedia were unknown to me. :) In this case I just thought it was an occurrence of drive-by vandalism so I didn't think it would be necessary to address the person. --Robby.is.on (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm

I'm sorry! I din't realize I did. I hope i get selected.--I Am The Great Editor in Chief (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Question on sources

Msgj,

I hope I am using the correct forum for asking this; if not, my sincerest apologies.

My question is re: an article for submission for which you have suggested a rewrite: Citizens United to Protect the Maurice River and Its Tributaries, Inc.

Specifically, my question is in regards to sources. You indicated that you did not feel that the sources were adequate, did not necessarily pertain, etc.

Can you please give me guidance on this? There are 23 sources/footnotes which include the National Park Service, NJN, EPA, the NY Times, etc. I've reviewed each of the footnotes, etc. and what they are referencing and am having difficulty understanding exactly what you are looking for.

As to the other comment, I will rework the article and run it past several other parties for their input.

Thank you for your input,

snj67Snj67 (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that!

I didn't know such a banner existed. I thought long and hard about it, but I wasn't sure about the man's notability - he seems to have won lots of awards, but when I checked in the search drive, he used to have an article, but it was deleted for lack of notability, so I wasn't sure. Thanks again!!! I called the Warner sister "Dottie" and lived to tell the tale! (talk) 07:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If he won those awards then I would say he should have an article. Last time it was speedily deleted under A7 - as it stands it is definitely not a speedy candidate now. MSGJ (talk) 07:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!!! I called the Warner sister "Dottie" and lived to tell the tale! (talk) 07:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize I had done that. I don't know how the AFC templates work, so I just copy the templates from previous accepts or declinations. I usually erase the signature of the previous user, and write in mine. I must have forgotten. Sorry! I called the Warner sister "Dottie" and lived to tell the tale! (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries! MSGJ (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: 75

I gave him a test template - not a vandal template - because he was repeatedly requesting implausbile redirects. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The message you left for him included the sentence "It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to blocking of editing privileges." The requests may have been inappropriate (I don't know) but I feel this message is way too strong for the situation. Regards, MSGJ (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Dawn of Fantasy

Thanks for your quick and painless response to my article request. I shall attempt to keep it updated subject to more information becoming available. Thanks.87.102.86.73 (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

AFC List

I found one active submission on Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2008-07-11. I urge you to double check them as quickly as possible since the done and complete tags was misused by someone else. --75.47.129.198 (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop wasting my time. MSGJ (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the note mate, I shall definitely remember to in future. Cheers, hope to see you around Mattie^TK 12:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I know I've made mistakes reverting non-vandalism in the past as well! MSGJ (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thai–Lao Friendship Bridge

Ooops - I think I should have made a double request, both to redirect to Thai–Lao Friendship Bridge:

• First Thai-Lao Friendship Bridge
• First Thai–Lao Friendship Bridge

58.8.212.156 (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done MSGJ (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! 58.8.212.156 (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Jat people

Hi pleased to meet you. Thank you very much for your help and reverting the vandal and internet troll attacks on the Jat people article. I have been keeping a close eye on the article over the last 12 months and the Jat people article has been prone to many racist internet troll & vandal attacks. The reason why this has and is happening is because it is about ethnic group that is prone to many racist attacks. Many of the anon racist attack are by anon ips and newly created vandal/troll wiki attack accounts. Please can you put the article in your wikipedia watchlist (Help:Watching pages) and revert anon ips and newly created vandal/troll attack changes. Personally I think the article needs semi-protection like the Jewish people article. Finally, thank you very much for your help and reverting the vandal and internet troll attacks on the Jat people article, please continue giving your anti-vandalism help on the Jat people article. Thank you.--James smith2 (talk) 03:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. I have no idea why this article is on my watchlist! But I shall continue to keep an eye on it as well. If it gets out of hand, just submit a request to RFPP. Best wishes, MSGJ (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes is was a vandal attack by the internet troll. Basically the strategy of these internet trolls is to put up negative uncited information, about this good and respectable Jat ethnic people, with hope everyone starts fighting on the article so then they can sit back and enjoy the fighting & show. The article is good now and stable but they want to mess it up so everyone starts fighting on the article that is their strategy. Please read up about internet trolls. Best regards.--James smith2 (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

SIP-T

Thank you for ignoring the Session initiation protocol talk page when entering the SIP-T chapter! --Kgfleischmann (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

From Blanca

Hi, Thank you for your comments, Could you please clarify why external links are insufficient? what 'in-text' should be added? Also, please accept ten (10) internal links to wikipedia articles as sufficient. Blanca Heredia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanca.heredia (talk • contribs) 10:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Precisely! If the US president were called George Bush Walker you would be right to add that mention for another George Walker, but you don't do it because he is called George W. Bush. Please try to understand: Bush = Porcioles (father's last name and the only name used), Walker = Colomer (mother's last name, almost never used); uses in most Latin languages are the opposite to uses in English!! I think for a person in charge of biographies of non-American people you should understand this.

Could you also remove the tag about internal links, since I added in-text citations?

Thank you Blanca Blanca.heredia (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:AFC new process

I see you tried out my new WP:AFC submission process. Do you think its easy to understand, and should it replace the current day-by-day archive system? Please respond on my talk page.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 17:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello There!!!!

Thanks for reverting vandal edits on my User Page.

Hitrohit2001 (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Hitrohit2001

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU

THANK YOU SOOOOOOO much for accepting my page! I used to request pages be made, but nothing ever happened ever. Finally, I thought I would try again, and it looked like the process changed a bit. I submitted it, and was declined, but at least it was declined quickly so it felt like there was some movement! So, I tried to add more things to address the reason why it was declined, and submitted it again, and now it was finally accepted by you--THANK YOU ! ! ! The quick decline and the reason given actually helped make it a better article in the long run, so at least that's lot better than the past when nothing happened. I like trains too! Am I allowed to add his name to "Holocaust Historians" category, or would that not count? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.251.198 (talk) 10:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Can you remember when you submitted articles previously to AfC? Because there was a long backlog at one stage but it has been cleared now. I don't see any other requests in your contributions so it must have been a different IP address you used then.

Regarding the category, if you think it is appropriate then by all means add it.

I might suggest you register for an account because then you will be able to create articles without using this process. Best wishes, MSGJ (talk) 10:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find your user page anymore! ! !

This is very strange, however I cannot find your page anymore. I was so excited that you had accepted my Terrence Des Pres article that afterward, I wanted to go back and look you user page in more detail to look at the stuff on trains etc. However no matter where I click on Msgj anywhere, it just comes to the page where everyone is leaving messages for you. I then noticed that your user page redirects to your talk page and I am so frustrated because I was trying to learn about all your different badges and things--especially the things about transport, but now I am completely unable to see those. This is driving me crazy and it is so complicated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.251.198 (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes my userpage redirects to my talkpage. I think you are confusing me with someone else because I never had stuff about trains on my userpage! MSGJ (talk) 11:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Hi, what is your intention regarding the protection of this page please? MSGJ (talk) 13:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to protect it but it seems I failed. Protected now. Thanks for the message. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

St Albans

Hi - Just a quickie to ask why the external link I added to the St Albans entry was removed. Many Thanks...

Arjaytee (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, wikipedia generally discourages external links because they are often used to promote other websites. Please read WP:EL for more details. In this case it didn't seem so relevant to St. Albans generally, so I questioned whether it was really appropriate. I hope this helps. MSGJ (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:AFC

I have restored the old process, but there are submissions at Category:Pending Afc requests. I only had to revert the last page of the wizard, so it will be easy to restore the process if it is adopted. (I also removed the notice on WP:AFC)--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Revamp of article

Hi, I have done a revamp of my proposed article on Citizens United to Protect the Maurice River and Its Tributaries, Inc. which you were kind enough to place in my userspace. Also, you asked about copyright; there should be no copyright issues. Would you please give it a look and let me know what you think? Thank you. Snj67 (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. A few suggestions:

1. Put the 'mission statement' further down the article. You need to put across in the first paragraph or two what makes this organisation notable (e.g. winning awards, etc.)
2. Capitalisation: you have some instances of titles like "Xxxx Xxxx" and some of "Xxxx xxxx". I think the latter is the preferred style.
3. The link http://www.nps.gov/phso/maurice.htm brings up an error.
4. You might like to give the sources labels, rather than just their web address. I changed number 7 as an example.
5. Explain what 501c3 means. (I have no idea.)
6. Wikify the article more. There are no internal links in the first section at all.
7. When you are ready to move it into mainspace, you can use the "Move" tab at the top of the page and just remove the User:Snj67 bit.

Hope this helps, MSGJ (talk) 08:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have done the above and attempted to move it. Would you mind checking to see if I have done it correctly? At what point does it show up when I search the wikipedia search box? Now that I have the hang of it perhaps I will do a few more! Snj67 (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Talk pages without corresponding article

Creating talk pages without a corresponding article is very likely to have an administrator delete the page. While some administrators will notice and not delete a page if it is tagged with {{go away}}, a few still may. The best option is to create pages in subpages of a WikiProject. Alternately, you could create stubs in the article space. But if you create talk pages without a corresponding article, the likelihood of them being deleted greatly increases. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, putting them in subpages of a wikiproject is certainly possible. Does that make them safe? But creating the corresponding project page would not be convenient. MSGJ (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping create Context sensitive user interface. Much appreciated.87.102.86.73 (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I wasn't sure how to cite your first source properly though! Perhaps you can fix it. MSGJ (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've converted them all to standard 'cite' templates - and the problem whatever it was has gone away!87.102.86.73 (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries

When I had warned User:TheRomantic about the personal attack on User:Someguy1221, I was probably adding it right about the time they got their final warning. Two people editing the same thing at the same time. It happens now and then. It's all good, though. The important part is they won't be causing any more trouble for quite some time.  :-) CardinalFangZERO (talk) 05:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Questionable revert?

Hey Msgj, It's an exceedingly minor matter, but I noticed your revert of an IP's de-orphaning, but when I went to check "What links here", it looked like it really had been a successful de-orphan attempt. So now I'm curious: why the revert? Thanks,--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it was a bad revert. A couple of days before the diff you provided, the tag was removed and I checked for incoming links and there were none. I guess it is possible that the "what links here" does not update immediately so the added links (which I see now) were not visible. Regarding the diff you quoted I have no explanation to offer there at all! Anyway, thanks for bringing it to my attention. MSGJ (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

AFC

Thanks for your input... I tried to explain my thought process a little more at WT:Articles for creation. Have a good one Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh yea... maybe I should bring it back Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 22:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:AfC

Thanks for the welcome and the advice. As you may have noticed I am a former editor and I created a temporary account to help deal with some of the backlog which is getting very large in alot of areas in the Wikipedia space. I'll try to help as much as I can but my time can be limited. Hopefully the policies haven't changed too much since I was last here. Thank you. Ydale38 (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't intend to stay for long. Just to clear the backlog so it was easier for me to create a new account since I can't remember my password for the old account. Ydale38 (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Montana Tucker

The note was just "I'm her manager and this is authorized", which isn't enough. Beyond that, the article was purely promotional and subject to speedy deletion under category G11, see WP:SPAM. I guess I should have put that as a reason as well. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: WPAFC header

Unfortunately, it seems as though the template has been "updated" (without my knowledge) since I last saw the code, so I'm not sure many of the changes you're proposing are even possible without messing with a zillion other Wikiproject templates. It's now using {{WPBannerMeta}}, which is a bit too general for our purposes. However, to address your questions...

1. That does make sense, however it's done that way to get bots and other scripts to read it properly, and it also makes it a lot easier for the template to work (everything is "Category:Foo-Class Project articles", you just stick in variables for Foo and Project and you're done). Also, renaming the category is not like renaming a page; you've got to re-categorize everything in the category into the new one and then delete the old one. It's very tedious and probably not really worth it.
2. Originally, there was a notarticle= parameter that allowed us to categorize templates used by the project into Category:Articles for creation templates. Unfortunately, when they "updated" the banner to use the Wikiproject meta template, that got thrown out and now everything is (inappropriately) lumped in with everything else.
3. Fortunately, they didn't completely get rid of notarticle=, and so setting notarticle=yes will do that. Leaving the parameter out adds "This page was created through the Articles for Creation process, and therefore is within the scope..." Setting it to yes takes that section out.

I'm not really entirely happy with the meta template, now that you've pointed out how it's mis-categorizing everything, so I'll try to see if it won't cause a huge uproar if I revert it to the previous hard-coded version (that was working perfectly fine, thank you very much, you meta-template people you). Using their template makes some of the documentation a bit outdated and incorrect, and really doesn't serve our project well because of everything we do. Unfortunately, we can't fix any of those problems without removing their meta template, so we're sort of stuck until that happens. I'll let you know what comes out. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

From Nattka

Hello! it's my first message on Wikipedia :)

Re: Welcome

Hi and thanks for the welcome, MSGJ. Alex Batt (talk) 10:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You notice about 75.47's attacks?

75.47 performs alot of temper tantrum. I hope he takes a anger-management course. I'm afraid of people who uses numerous of slurs like Fuck you on edit summary, and this is totally unwelcoming and unacceptable. The other summaries I see he writes whoo cares when County Lemonade just ask him to discuss issues on talkpage. I can tell if he was an admin he would lokc pages, delete stuff, and block users in abusive manner to harm the community.--Freewayguy ^{What's up?} 17:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's getting out of hand but there is little that can be done with dynamic IPs. MSGJ (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

afc

Thanks for that! Submissions can languish for some time, and one never knows if it shall be arbitrarily rejected at the end of it all, so your intervention there is most appreciated. 86.44.19.24 (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I would be interested to hear any comments you might have about how we could improve this process. It's been a bit back-logged recently, but generally the waiting time is not too long these days. MSGJ (talk) 10:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no way of improving it short of recruiting a few more to help out, and having a quiet helpful word with any good enough to do so who may make some bad decisions. So far I've been turned down there at least seven times, each time a respectable, sourced article of obvious notability, and each now in the encyclopedia in largely unchanged form. My longest wait for review was eight days and ended in a decline.

It's not worthy of complaint, since the only incentive for contributing there (apart from helping somebody, which is always nice) is to improve the encyclopedia for readers without any personal status or kudos involved. Though I contribute under that same incentive myself, it doesn't seem to be all that universal 'round these parts. It's not exactly wiki-glamorous. Driving a few registered and probably mostly helpful editors away from the process through criticism would almost certainly not be worth any benefits, presuming meaningful benefits would even accrue. Most likely backlogs would grow, regs would grow discouraged, IP subs would languish, and so on. 86.44.20.133 (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I might start by trying to recruit you :) Any chance you could register an account and join in? I'd be interested in looking at the submissions which you feel were wrongly declined. I must admit that I do not check submissions that have already been reviewed so it might be a problem I'm not aware of. It's the hard ones that usually languish. The good ones are accepted quickly and the bad ones are declined quickly. The others sit around because no one can decide! (e.g. those two soldiers in today's submissions - I can't decide whether they are notable) MSGJ (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Registering would indeed solve many of my problems generally. Admins have a nasty habit of suddenly blocking me for "disruption and being a likely sockpuppet of somebody" when i attempt discussion with them. True story. But I think the project's openness is its great strength, therefore so far I prefer to be part of the wider community of editors.

There's no need to link to the rejected articles; someone would perhaps trace the editor who rejected each and use it against them if I did. But the submission you accepted on Winley Records perhaps gives you an idea that I know what an article should be. The long wait referred to above, for instance, was on a pioneering French photographer, sourced to a book published by Phaidon Press, and to the New York Times. A couple of other record companies less obscure than Winley and similarly important, were rejected referrencing Wikipedia:SPEEDY#A7! Oh well, all's well that ends well. 86.44.24.200 (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Review of Earl Mindell

Hey, just wanted to say thank you for reviewing the article. Have a good one! SERSeanCrane (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. It was my first one actually, so I hope I wasn't unduly harsh or anything. If you can fix those points I'd be happy to take another look at afterwards. Best wishes, MSGJ (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Laura Helene Kahn

The "one health" program has generated a lot of excitement in Veterinary medicine and in public health. See http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/jul08/080715p.asp

Njvet (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

AfC archiving

Thanks for taking over from the bot for a day. The new "Update any redirects that point to the original title" checkbox when moving pages led to a mistake in the program (of course, any mistakes are really to be blamed on me, not on the program). With a bit of luck, it should work again tonight. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't me. It was WW. I just added it to the archive list. MSGJ (talk) 09:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: AFC

There's a redirect class now? I've been away so long, that, I didn't know. Thanks for letting me know. --EoL talk 22:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

British Bangladeshi

Hi there, thanks for reviewing the article for a GA status, and providing the list. I am currently getting started on it, thanks a lot! And yes it is very long, sorry just had to put all that info in there :) Mohsin 14:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC) You're welcome. I was confused because I thought M Miah and Mohsin were two different editors - now I realise you are the same! MSGJ (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I just edited some of the things which you have listed on the review (3 and 4), can you please check to see if it meets the criteria now? Thanks! Mohsin 15:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Just looking at it now. MSGJ (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for promoting the article, thanks for reviewing it and everything!!! Thanks!!! Couldn't be one without your help! Mohsin 11:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Keep up the good work! MSGJ (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

AfC "redirect" rating

Hey, thanks for the pointer, I'll be sure to tag redirects appropriately in future. I've also corrected the instructions I was following so that nobody else makes that mistake :). Cheers! - Toon⁰⁵ 23:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool, and welcome back from your wikibreak! MSGJ 06:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

great ice storm

I believe they are proper nouns, so should be capitalized, tne uncapped version should exist as well though. 70.55.85.143 (talk) 11:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Jason Keller

Hi Msgj-- there are TWO Jason Keller(s) on wikipedia. One of the subjects is labeled as simply "Jason Keller" on the main page -- the second is labeled as "Jason Keller (playwright)" -- I am getting questions from researchers who are not finding "Jason keller (playwright)" because they are not seeing his name in the pull down menu -- and as a result are being taken directly to the wrong Jason Keller.

is it possible to differentiate these two subjects on their MAIN PAGES? i.e. "Jason Keller (driver)" and "Jason Keller (playwright)"

thanks- Tom Rhodes (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I anticipated this, and so added the disambiguation link "For the Americam playwright, see Jason Keller (playwright)" to the top of Jason Keller. I think this solves the problem, no? MSGJ 17:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, MSGj, I saw the disambiguation link, but others are blasting past it... is there a way to offer a choice before researchers are led directly to the DRIVER Jason Keller? In the "search" window is what I was thinking (i.e. you type Jason Keller and both (driver) and (playwright) appear in the drop down menu... forcing a choice) -- possible?

and thanks for your quick responses and continued help...

TR Tom Rhodes (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Heather Mills

I'm back, and have worked on the article. (BTW, I thank you very much for your patience).--andreasegde (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Away at the moment, but will look into this on my return. MSGJ 14:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Okey-dokey.--andreasegde (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For fixing my typo in the AFC template. Cheers Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 03:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Image talk:Elephant seals fighting.jpg

Hello, Msgj. I think talk pages are important part of out encyclopedic website. Such these talk pages are useless, and helpless for the project, we're not Flickr (e.g This image is great), are we?! ;)--OsamaK^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 13:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's useless and have now blanked it. I just can't see the point in deleting the page! MSGJ 09:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

AFC instructions

Shouldn't the AFC new instructions include the option to include the decline reason inside the submission template? I can't figure a simple way to explain that (simple explanations were never my strong suit). Someguy1221 (talk) 08:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, unless someone beats me to it, I will overhaul all the instructions when I get a chance, merging the new with old. MSGJ 09:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

La fuente de Cacho fixed

I have already submitted an english source for the article. Hope it is enough. Thanks for your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willybenson (talk • contribs) 20:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

re:afc

Hello, MSGJ. You have new messages at Alexnia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AFC submissions

Please place a declined banner or CSD template when blanking an inappropriate submission; this way I can distinguish them from lost submissions, which have actually been turning up. Thanks! Someguy1221 (talk) 08:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay! (I was wondering if you were still checking for those.) MSGJ 09:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Football

Hello, MSGJ. You have new messages at Travellingcari's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

more mail ;) TravellingCari 21:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Unregistered users and redirects

Regarding your post on User talk:70.51.8.75: my bad. I didn't realize that. Thanks for clearing things up. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 14:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I see we both agreed that the Chinese ones were not appropriate. MSGJ 14:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

BMI Gaming submission

re: BMI Gaming: First time ever writing a piece for Wikipedia - Can you give some edit suggestions to make the submission less "advertorial" as you suggested? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.15.49.198 (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

AfC Advice

Hi! I just started taking a look at the Articles for Creation page and it seems pretty interesting. I've reviewed a couple of articles and wanted to know if I'm doing it correctly. You seem to be pretty active there, so I thought I would drop you a line. I reviewed this article and this one. Have I missed anything? Thanks in advance! TN‑X-Man 13:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, both of those were correctly declined. The only thing possibly missed is that copyright violations (or any potentially libellous content) should be removed from the page. I've done it on that page. I hope you stick around here and review some more articles. If you have any further questions, please get in touch. Best wishes, MSGJ 14:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually just did one more, Pekel Cave. I'm in the process of adding categories, stubs, and so forth. Thanks for the help! TN‑X-Man 14:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, MSGJ. You have new messages at Gtstricky's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

template:scrollable

I've modified the example to make it longer, so the scroll bar now appears. 70.51.8.75 (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:AFC submission/declined

I tweaked it a bit to try to get people to correct the issues and resubmit the articles. See what you think. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes looks great. Just one request, could it be "Oct 7th" rather than 10/07 because it's confusing for us Brits who are used to 07/10! Are you sure it won't work with {{AFC submission/tools}} as that would be far neater. MSGJ 21:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Done and it is in the tools template now. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

question about synergy sports technology profile

I removed opinioned words from synergy sports technology profile. The company has been highlighted in the NYT, Newsday and CNET. Is there anything I can do to get the advertisement tag removed.

Thanks for your help.

Thearcadiannewspaper —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thearcadiannewspaper (talk • contribs) 12:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Revert

Hi there, thanks for picking up on [5] - my mistake :) --Flewis^(talk) 13:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Review on hold

U put my thing on hold. How is it not reliable?? It is from the jazz encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.74.177.6 (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, plese tell me which "thing" you are talking about and I'll take another look. Thanks. MSGJ 06:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The article creation request for Mark Capon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.74.176.253 (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The basic criterion for notability is that a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. One link to an online encyclopedia didn't satisfy me that this criteria was met. If you can cite more sources, then feel free to submit again. Best wishes, MSGJ 09:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

U know what Im frustrated I gave up! I aint wasting my life on this! FORGET ABOUT IT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.74.176.137 (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

the blog is mine

Hi, You declined my entry saying it was from www.mundopassageiro.blogspot.com, and you are right. However, I am the blog owner and am trying to post the same paper that I posted there here at Wikipedia. Please, do not decline my post. Rodrigo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.62.32.175 (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is not as simple as that. Please read Wikipedia:Copyrights. As well as the copyright issue, the submitted article is unsuitable for Wikipedia as it is not written neutrally. Please rewrite it in a neutral style and we can reconsider it. Best wishes, MSGJ 21:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Heather Mills

Hi, I never said that the insert was unsourced, but that it was blog gossip and unsupported. Surely, we are not going to start treating blogs as definitive source material. If so I will start a 'flat-earth blog', or a 'global-warming is a fact' blog or other such nonsense. Incidentally the blog comment under discussion was also untrue, but that seems to be irrelevant with this subject matter... as long as the outcome is anti-Miss Mills everything seems fair game. Lets return to presumption of innocence before we all blindly believe what some snide journo has written. But then if its in The Sun it MUST be true!!!! Captainclegg (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite understand. If a passage is sourced then it is not unsupported, is it? The edit you reverted included no fewer than three inline citations and they were reliable sources not blogs. I won't revert again at this stage; arguably that passage should be lower down the article and not so prominent. But please don't be so quick to remove sourced content. MSGJ 11:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You make a very good point and I did indeed miss the three others. However, I am questioning the veracity of the source. I strongly feel that a blog is not an adequate source. It is opinion and not fact and surely we are trying to drag Wikipedia into the world of fact and away from its hard-fought-for reputation of laughably-inaccurate, where anything goes. As I am sure you are aware (just look back at the history) there are many mischief-makers out there who like to make out that someone they do not know and only ever read one-sided accounts about, is always a bad person and so will publish outright lies. As I said, lets return to presumption of innocence and fact - not supposition.Captainclegg (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that blogs are not reliable. But the statements you removed were supported by reliable sources and NOT blogs! That is why I reverted you. MSGJ 17:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that you will find that this vitriolic, nasty, untrue rubbish is from a VERY biased and bitter source and is the blog I was referring to: http://www.glennsacks.com/blog/?p=2729 Captainclegg (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of The Athenian Society

Please do not move pages to nonsensical titles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to learn more about moving pages, please see the guidelines on this subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. MisterWiki talking! :-D - 13:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Koraro

Hello and thanks for the welcome.
I was trying to provide a link from the physical description of the area jagged escarpments and dusty arid land in the article (which I had re-written before I just signed up) directly to a photo that perfectly illustrates it. It is from a group of photos that the existing external link goes to the frontpage of, that give a much more comprehensive view of the area and the people who actually live there. What is the best way of formatting this and can you point me to an exemplar?
I know it would be much better to simply add a photo directly to the article, but since it's in the ass end of nowhere and nobody has bombed it recently , there is nothing in public domain :(
BarbarianHorde (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right, the best would be to upload them to Commons. I think most of Flickr stuff is in the public domain and so copyright is not an issue, but I'm no expert on that. If you work out how to do that then great. I've put a footnote for the photo on the article for the moment, which is probably the second best option. Best wishes, MSGJ 17:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that serves the purpose.BarbarianHorde (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ripperda

I noticed that my proposed article titled "Ripperda (family)" was declined on the gounds that it is a duplicate. I would appreciate it if you could explain this. There is currently no other article about the Ripperda family on the English Wikipedia site nor is this a copy of any other existing article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.84.219.147 (talk • contribs)

There is an article on the Dutch site and there are articles about two famous members of this family.

Sorry if my comment wasn't clear. I mean there were two submissions which seemed to be the same. The other one is Articles for creation/Submissions/Ripperda which has not yet been reviewed. Best wishes, MSGJ 11:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that is the one submitted before. It is in Dutch and was meant for the Dutch site. The one you declined yesterday was my latest proposal in English. I would appreciate it if you could reconsider. On a seperate note, I have a couple of pictures I would like to add. Could you please explain how to do that?

Thanks!

OK, I have signed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henders72 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have just had a look at the other submission and noted that I have indeed duplicated it. Sorry, my mistake. The most up-to-date proposal is the one you rejected. Could you please consider that one (Ripperda (family)) and decline the first one (Ripperda) instead?

 Done MSGJ 14:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated!

Btw, how do I add pictures?

Well the simplest way is to register for an account and then go to Wikipedia:Upload. If you do not have an account then it is not so easy ... MSGJ 11:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I noted that my proposal for the article Ripperda (family) has been put on hold. The reason given is that this is about a family. I would like to point out that there are other entries about similar families (e.g. House of Bentinck, House of Limburg-Stirum, House of Wassenaer, van Zuylen van Nijevelt, de Geer, Tuyll, and van Voorst tot Voorst)), which are all related to the Ripperda's. In addition, considering that this family has played a major role in European history I really do believe it deserves its own entry. The articles has several links to famous Ripperda's. Perhaps the title should be changed to simply "Ripperda" or "House of Ripperda"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.84.219.147 (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added your comment to the submission. Let's have the discussion there and see what other editors think. MSGJ 15:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have also rejigged the article a bit taking on board your comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.84.219.147 (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you might be right about having an article on the family. I'd just prefer to wait to see what others think. PS When you reply on a talk page it is better to use the same section rather than starting a new one. Also, please can you sign your posts by typing 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end? Thanks. MSGJ 16:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I will eagerly await your reponse! Have a good weekend. HENC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.84.219.147 (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: WP:AFC

All right, I'll do that. Thanks for the reminder. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Juan María Vicencio, Baron de Ripperdá

Sorry to be so difficult but I have another point: My entry for "Juan María Vicencio, Baron de Ripperdá" was accepted but is showing up as Juan María Vicencio. His surname is missing(Baron de Ripperdá). I do not seem to be able to change this. Would it be possible for you to make the correction?

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.84.219.147 (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, is that actually his name? Or is it his title? I think naming policy says that titles should not be included in the title of the article. MSGJ 16:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

His name is Juan María Vicencio DE RIPPERDÁ. His title is Baron. See also John William, Baron Ripperda. In general, Ripperda is a surname, with or without the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.84.219.147 (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so should the article be at Juan María Vicencio de Ripperda? This is achieved by moving the page, something you would be able to do yourself if you registered for an account! MSGJ 16:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should. I suppose I 'd better sign up for an account then.... Have a good weekend. HENC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.84.219.147 (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Page moved. Have a nice weekend as well, and let me know when you've got an account :) MSGJ 16:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Robert Valding

Hello again((Koraro)section),
I didn't Create/Submit this and hold no brief for this dude (I merely rewrote it for clarity and put in the live links). But I note that the one Wikipedia link from his credits that was live, Night of the Living Dead 3D (2006) has a link to its producer/director Jeff Broadstreet which is almost identical to this one in content/layout (I hadn't looked at it before, honest!). I shall pass without comment on the fact that Jeff Broadstreet's apparently didn't need editing for clarity, whilst the scriptwriter's did. Although a quick read of the IMDB review of the film might provide a clue. I haven't seen the film myself and whatever you/I/others might think of it, it is part of the Living Dead canon which is genuinely/regarded as/ culturally significant and anybody seeking information on it in the future will probably end up following these links.
Ps. This comparative arguement shouldn't be seen as making a case for deleting Jeff Broadstreet. I don't think anyone would want that on their conscience :) All the best.BarbarianHorde (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not completely sure what you're getting at here to be honest .... but well done for improving the article. By the way I found this hilarious! I might suggest you spend time on improving actual articles because of a lot of the WP:AFC submissions do turn out to be copyright violations or complete rubbish. Better still, you may like to start reviewing some of the submissions with us? Regards, MSGJ 15:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Just that if Jeff Broadstreet met the cut off for notability, then so should Robert Valding (who at least had the common human decency to change his name), if only to prevent the horrific karmic consequences of Jeff Broadstreet being able to feel superior to anything except the single celled organisms growing under my fridge (but who am I to judge, the only films I have ever made are unlikely to see the outside of an evidence locker).
With regards to the International Knockout Mouse Consortium (how did I manage to live before the that melliflous conjunction of syllables manifested itself before me), have you grown so jaded and cynical that you doubt the innocent sincerity of my humble apology and my fervent desire to expand the bounds of the lumpen proleteriat's cognition of the aims and desires, and may I venture, the lofty aspirations of such an august body of ravening vivisectionists? Forsooth sir, you underestimate me and demean yourself!
I'm afraid I do not share your frankly puzzling appraisal of the Gloryhole of synaptic effluent that the WP:AFC so clearly is and notwithstanding the unfortunate delay before I am unleashed with POWER to uncontrollably edit at the end of the four day holding period mandated by the mere mortals of the Wiki (do you think there should be a countdown clock in Times Square?) I assure you that I will continue to prostrate myself before this portal of profundity through which Our Future Robot Masters will surely choose to announce themselves on The Day of The Great Adjustment!.
I'm sorry, I think I have to go and lie down now.
May your tombstone say Unknown Earthling Scum.BarbarianHorde (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Dirty Laundry (Bitter:Sweet)

Thanks, I had seen the WP:MUSIC guidelines and they are indeed logical. The problem (if problem it is) is a similar one experienced by dictionary compilers. That there are huge areas of human experience that are very widely shared and known, but which are almost totally undocumented in either a formal or informal way. Dictionary compilers used to wait for literally decades after their first citable use in respectable 'literature' for 'new' words to be even considered for inclusion and subsequent formalisation. This has had truly tragic consequences for not just the documentation of, but progression of, human civilization.
Essentially we've been doing the equivalent of burning the Great Library of Alexandria all day everday since the first neanderthal was talked down too by a cro-magnon for mispronouncing rhinocerous (incidentally the first word I spoke as a baby, I kid you not!).

In this particular case I think the song merits notability for inclusion under the guidelines due to the special circumstances of it's widespread and overt commercial use as a 'euphemism' or 'semiotic' for sexual activity in mainstream media, both caused by and causing it's widespread undocumented use as one of this (and now other) generation's (as Coupe de Ville euphemistically put it) "hump songs" of choice. If you need independent confirmation, just put it on, turn the bass up to 11 and wait for your girlfriend/boyfriend/significant other's opinion (believe me you won't have to wait long). If you haven't heard about it before, don't worry about it. Tens of thousands of parents shouting "turn that **** down!" up the stairs don't have a clue either.
Now documenting this is difficult, but just ask any ad agency music licenser what they want to licence for their ad but can't afford.
Think of it as being somewhere between Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon and glory hole.
I'm sorry if this comes across as the unwavering pursuit of some weird ideological agenda, but as Dick Cheney said when he shot that old dude in the face "Hey, it's just my opinion".
BarbarianHorde (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh and for the purposes of full disclosure: I came looking for the song on Wikipedia on monday morning, wondered why it wasn't there, got the obvious answer that it was because nobody had put it there, looked up, saw the 'edit this page' tab et voila! So the IPs Creating/Submitting and editing it were mine, until I was warmly welcomed by Leujohn and signed up. I must say it's a nice place to be.BarbarianHorde (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, after seeing my additional rewrite/sources/inline citations, the original reviewer Leujohn suggested I go ahead and start it myself. I wanted to wait to see if you had any additional comments/suggestion/concerns regarding notability before doing so, but you've been gone some time, so I went ahead. If you have the time please check it out and let me know your thoughts. Thanks again for your help in getting my first wholly authored article from Submission to Acceptance. May your tombstone say Earthman. BarbarianHorde (talk) 10:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete Dead Pleasures

I have declined a speedy delete for the article. The band might meet the national tour criteria in WP:MUSIC. You can prod or AFD the article if you want. Royalbroil 14:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ripperda

Hi there,

OK, I have registered as you suggested. Henders72 (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

How can we progress with my submission Ripperda (family)? I would suggest renaming it "Ripperda". Unfortunately, I am not yet allowed to do that as I will only be able to move a page after having been registered for 4 days.Henders72 (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have moved it to Ripperda as requested. I didn't realise it was still in the queue. MSGJ 16:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I will wait a few days before adding some pictures.Henders72 (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Just curious

Any idea what's happening here? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he/she seems to be moving the barnstar I put on the talk page. MSGJ 13:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Pt. 2

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar
		For your dedication to AfC!

TN‑X-Man 23:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! MSGJ 12:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

help pls mr msgj

Help pls mr msgj. I noticed you left a message on my page, did i do something wrong? !xo Derek (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If you read the message you'll see that I was welcoming you to Wikipedia. So no, you haven't done anything wrong! MSGJ 09:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Adopting new users

Hey Msgj, Noticed you offered to adopt User:Sephirothrr some time ago. Looks like s/he hasn't been back on wiki since then. I've changed the adoptme template on their user page to reflect your kind offer [6] - hope you don't mind me taking your name in vain. Otherwise Sephirothrr was the oldest (and therefore first priority) adoption request over in [[Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user]] where there are plenty of other adoption candidates waiting. Have a great day. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I've been doing that to a few others as well. MSGJ 18:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Mathematics

If you're going to convert a template to WPBannerMeta, you should convert {{maths rating}}, not {{WikiProject Mathematics}}. It's hard enough to get people to fill in the rating information as is. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Carl, I'm just testing out how feasible it is. For that I need to compare the two to make sure it is behaving as expected. I'll start a discussion and put my proposals before implementing anything! If it goes ahead we can move it across to {{maths rating}} or redirect as appropriate. Cheers, MSGJ 21:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. Here are the main technical issues that come to my mind. When a field is assigned you need to link to the appropriate field page, like the present template does; otherwise you should link to the unassigned field page. These field backlinks are used by VeblenBot to track which articles are in which fields. The new template also has to fill in the quality and importance categories, but I'm sure the meta template does that fine. The new template needs to support the B+ quality category, as the present template does. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to work with me on this, as you know how the things work better than me? There are options on the metatemplate for a B class checklist which I haven't defined yet. (No mention of B plus though ...) The fields are linking fine (look at my Msgj/Sandbox1 for some examples); they even have some cute pictures. I was wondering whether it would be useful if there were categories for the various fields? MSGJ 21:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

PS, it seems to me that this Bplus category is completely nonstandard and may well put a stop to any idea of converting. MSGJ 21:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is completely nonstandard. You could ask on WT:WPM if people still care about it. Personally I am very neutral. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Well we could start a discussion, although it might be better to separate this from the question of converting the banner. I've got a workaround for the Bplus: they will all be categorised as B-class, and a separate note and additional category will appear on those marked as Bplus. See the third example on my sandbox. (It looks slightly odd that it's rated as B and B+ though.) MSGJ 22:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Artist or not?

Dear Msgj I wrote an artist's article. It's declined! I don't know why? How can tell me the result? I've added the Resources and extenal links and any other needed information, besides this article exists in other languages also. Thanks for your information. Djingil (talk) 07:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I will have a look and get back to you soon. MSGJ 15:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Djingil (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

For the subject to be notable there needs to be substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources. There were five sources cited on the article:

• TIMA (The Islamic Manuscript Thesaurus) - this is not a third-party source because the subject is a member
• Qoqnoos.com - this seems to be the personal website of the subject - again not third-party
• Iranian.com - gives me "page load error"
• Iranjop.com - I cannot read this, but this does not look like a reliable source
• Mehr - again, does not look like a reliable source

This is why I declined the article. If you can find better sources you are welcome to resubmit. Best wishes, MSGJ 18:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Math assessment categories

I apologize for being so snappy this morning. I thought I would have a cup of coffee and then try to start over.

Here are a couple things I noticed about the new template:

• The images look nice.
• The category pages should be formatted with the template Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0/Assessment category format. This makes it possible to keep the formatting consistent, and to change all the category pages with a single edit. I'll remove the extra text from that, but I think the nav box and the summary tables are important.
• There has been a consensus for a while not to rate anything except articles; so disambigs, project pages, categories, and templates are not rated. I put a thread on the math project page about this.

— Carl (CBM · talk) 15:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well it's not surprising really. I was making wholesale changes to things which you had spent a long time working on. I just wish you had put more of your thoughts on the discussion before :) Let's keep discussing on the other page. MSGJ 15:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Why this edit may I ask? It seems to have stopped categorising that page correctly. Or is it no longer automatic? MSGJ 15:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I hacked and chopped so much out of the general format template that it no longer recognized the special-case "articles by quality" and "articles by priority". I manually categorized those two just after that. Two steps forward/one step back.

Well I think it looks a lot better :) MSGJ 15:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I have double checked the categories that appear on Template:WP MATH 1.0 and they seem OK. The last "importance" category seems to be the "unassessed importance" one. Can we change that to priority too?

No, the standard is Category:Unknown-Priority mathematics articles. MSGJ 15:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

At some point I'll need to go through Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0/Assessment category format and re-instate the categorization of some of the special-case categories. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Submissions/Jeff_Purtle

The International Trumpet Guild Journal has 7000 members internationally and is the biggest trumpet journal in the world. The reviews in the ITG Journals should meet the conditions of wide-coverage, reliable and third-party.

The Brass Herald magazine is another known journal to trumpet and brass players.

www.claudegordonmusic.com is the only official website for Claude Gordon and Purtle has been the only question and answer person listed on that website as "certified" by Claude Gordon.

The links to purtle.com provide archived third-party content too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.162.24 (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Project class

Hehe, you just beat me to fixing that. Thanks for watching. :-) GreenReaper (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries! MSGJ 19:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, importance will default to NA for all non-articles so it's saves you typing it. MSGJ 19:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Opinion #3?

Thank you for your query on my talkpage. I think not, for I get tired of merry-go-rounds very easily. There is always Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents if outside review is considered necessary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

List of flags by country

Hi, did you mean to delete substantial sections of debate with your recent edit? Daicaregos (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No! Sorry. What the heck happened there? I will revert. MSGJ 14:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Pretty bizarre, huh? Thanks for amending. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources etc.

Hi Martin, htakns for the note. Funnily enoguh, though this is a very SB type of thing to doit's actually the platform WP:AWB doing it - SB is a littl emore up-to-date (sources was a redirect to unref once upon a time). I'll have a word with the AWB team, menawhile I'v changed SB to run it's fixes before the AWB ones, so it shuld stop doing that.

Rich Farmbrough, 12:56 5 December 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for the reply. Are you typing on a PDA or something ... ? After reporting the error, I noticed that those articles didn't actually have a references section, so I thought maybe the bot trying to be really clever and deliberately change the notice ;) But I guess that's not the case. Cheers, Martin 13:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

AfC list

That's not a problem at all. Thanks for the time and effort you're putting into this. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 17:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Your removal of comment at WPM

I hope you don't mind, but I've restored Pcap's post at Math project page. As TE is an active participant in this project, others in the project will have an interest in this. Paul August ☎ 19:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

My aim was just to decrease drama. Martin 23:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. I thought about removing it myself. In practice it's almost impossible to remove anything from that talk page without it being restored, I'm sorry you found out the hard way. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou!

Thankyou for finally changing that to a Rubik's cube and saving me from being blocked. I don't care about it now but as long as an image is there I don't mind. Maybe I will look into this issue after a few months as User:CBM suggested.

Topology Expert (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm just relieved we managed to sort it out to most people's satisfaction! I was going to suggest something. You obviously do lots of great work here at Wikipedia which is widely recognised. However sometimes you seem to get yourself into awkward situations. Would it help at all to have some kind of friend/buddy/mentor (whichever label you choose) to discuss things with when things get sticky. I don't promise to always agree with you :) but I would be able to give advice and support. If this sounds like a good idea, please let me know. Martin 23:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't really get a chance to read your reply because as soon as I came back from my Wikibreak, I got into a conflict and was blocked. I have indeed been recently getting into awkward situations (the algebra stub template, then the geometry stub template (meanwhile the school article) and then all those together into the Moondyne issue which I am still convinced was rejected because admins were afraid that Moondyne would get a bad name but no need to discuss that...), and I almost considered retirement (from Wiki) but I think that I will stop getting into discussions at WikiProject maths/non-math articles unless it is a discussion about 'maths' rather than 'politics' (everything has been political lately and I am really unlucky in politics). Your offer sounds like a good idea (and thankyou for the offer) and it would help. If I need help I will ask your opinion but hopefully I won't need to do this in the near future (in fact I used to always ask advice from User:OdedSchramm but sadly he passed away a few months ago and since then I have been involved in a lot of conflicts). Topology Expert (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Firstly welcome back. I'm impressed that you got straight back to business after your unblock and kept your word about not going back over the past. I would suggest archiving your talk page and putting all those unfortunate events behind you. About your block, I won't say much. I believe the language used by those on the AN did not help, and I think you should have had a clear and final warning before the block was applied. But actually I'm not sure it would have made any difference in the end, as it seemed like nothing was going to calm you down ;) Anyway, I am here whenever you need advice. Use the email function or use the talk page, as you wish. I strongly suggest you talk to me or someone else before doing something rash like going to AN again, or if you feel you are being treated unjustly by another user. Finally, don't you dare retire! The loss to the project would be immeasurable. Martin 17:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

T.E.

You might need to have a word or two with your mentee, User:Topology Expert, see[7]. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I replied on his talk page. Some advice to User:Nsk92: best to not make mistakes from now on (not implying that you have made mistakes in the past).

Topology Expert (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not my main account so I usually don't read emails there but I will do so now.

Topology Expert (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

re: {{AFC redir}}

Hi Msgj: Re: {{AFC redir}}, that you created(!?) on 4 Dec, it existed before no? It is targeted by User:Henrik/js/afc-helper.js which is used to accept a new redirect but it now has a "decline" template. I'm confused. Saintrain (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I think I can explain. The redirect accept template is Template:Afc redirect. When Graeme and I were trying to think what to call the new template I thought of Template:AFC redir. Now your confusion I think stems from the fact that Template:Afc redir (note different capitalisation) used to redirect to Template:Afc redirect but I changed it to point to Template:AFC redir. I didn't think anyone was using the redirect and I thought it would be terribly confusing to have two different templates with slightly different capitalisations! Martin 21:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have undone my redirect until we sort it out. Sorry about that. Martin 22:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Been there ... JS doesn't show up in what links here. One of us <ahem> should coordinate with Henrik to get his JS to point to the right template? Saintrain (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Graeme is working on a new one which will just have the relevant links for redirects. I'll let you know what happens! Martin 06:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll actually look at what I save :-) Saintrain (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Mathematical argument with silly rabbit

Although it is not a dispute it is certainly an argument and maybe you might like to participate (I mean provide your thoughts on the subject content). It would be good to have others' opinions.

Topology Expert (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I am really getting fed up with my keyboard! :) (I am using an on-screen one now).

Topology Expert (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the article when I get the chance and get back to you! However as a preliminary point I might suggest that, instead of starting threads on multiple pages, it would make more sense to discuss it on the article talk page. Martin 19:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

AfC Challenge

It seems we have our first competitor! Legotkm has added his table to the page. TN‑X-Man 04:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bishop–Keisler controversy

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bishop–Keisler controversy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bishop–Keisler controversy. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 05:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

{{WikiProject Television}}

Thanks for updating {{OCtaskforce}}, when I was checking that some of the articles categorised properly I noticed that the television had also changed to meta. I then observed that for that template, anything that was listed as class=Fl has lost its functionality. The meta template seems to require class=FL as code. Before "Fl" or "FL" added to the same category, and whilst I prefer FL and agree it should be used, I am worried that these changes may have decategorised cases where lower-case was used into new redlinked categories. See this old revision. I assume this might also be true for many other lower case classes used e.g. class=b instead of class=B. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I checked the link and it appears to be working correctly. Indeed all the parameters of the meta should be non-case-specific; if they are not it's an error. Can you check again and let me know if there are any examples which are not working? Martin 20:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hi

Can I safely assume that you are the same Gurch registered on Bugzilla? Martin 10:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Such a thing can be proved if necessary by e-mailing an account and seeing whether the e-mail address of the reply matches the e-mail address shown on Bugzilla -- Gurch (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Such a procedure will not be necessary! I am the person who requested the lifting of the page creation restriction by unregistered users. I thought I could talk about it here rather than risk confusing the thread on bugzilla. Martin 20:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a developer, so there's nothing I can do about it that you can't -- Gurch (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If I may jump in here, the reason the restriction was put in place was due in large part to the Seigenthaler incident. With Wikipedia's ascension to the list of top ten websites, the risk of potential BLP issues was deemed to be too great to allow unregistered users to create pages. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 22:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles, not pages. There is no reason for anonymous users not to be able to create non-article pages. They can already create talk pages, remember -- 22:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your points, certainly with regard to project space. However lifting the restriction in all namespaces except mainspace (although I would support this as well) seems to me like a major and significant change and something which should be discussed to reach a consensus before a request can be made. Yes I know it wasn't discussed when the restriction was imposed, but two wrongs don't make a right :) Martin 10:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Mayer–Vietoris sequence

Would you mind reviewing Mayer–Vietoris sequence, which has been listed at WP:GAN since 14:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)? I think it looks reasonably, though the history section is a bit short. But I think what it needs most is for someone with a good background in advanced mathematics to take a look at it. Thanks! Dr. Cash (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It's funny because I noticed the post on WTWPM and was thinking about doing the review. I hesitated because I am fairly busy at the moment. Why did you think about me? Martin 20:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Nsk92 again

Dear Martin,

I am having problems with this user again. On covering space, I wrote in the lede roughly how one can calculate the fundamental group of a space using universal covering spaces. Generally, when someone reads a Wikipedia article, they want to read the lede and get some feedback about the concept without having to understand so many mathematical terms (i.e as few as possible). I had originally written that one can use the action of a discrete group on the total space of a universal covering map in-order-to calculate the fundamental group of the base space. Of course, certain conditions must be imposed on the group (the group is actually the group of deck transformations) and the action has to be free and fiber-wise (that is, has to preserve the fibre). But is there a need to write all these conditions when the reader merely wants a rough idea? I mean, anyway this can be added to a section further down the article and I think you will agree that my first sentence ('one can use the action of a discrete group on the total space of a universal covering map in-order-to calculate the fundamental group of the base space') is much simpler to understand and explains how one can use covering maps to calculate the fundamental group (which is what people want to know). Most people who first learn the concept may not know what 'deck-transformations' are (of course not!) and I don't think they will be familiar with terms such as 'free' and 'transitive'. And if he really wants to give the mathematically precise statement (I love mathematical precision!) then he can always give it further down the article and give an intuitive description in the lede (in fact, the description is still mathematically correct; it is just not completely specific). I tried explaining this to User:Nsk92 but he did not respond (ignored me) and reverted my edit. I also requested him to be a little less 'agressive' in his edit summaries but again he chose to ignore me. I am not sure what to do. Could you please help out?

P.S The funny thing is that I am supposed to be retired and he is supposed to be on his Wikibreak and yet we are still arguing over one sentence. Topology Expert (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi TE, it's going to take me some time to read through all this. But first some initial comments. It seems ridiculous (to be frank) that you have declared yourself "retired" but are still carrying on like this. You need to decide your position: either you retire (and then really retire) or take down the sign. I had mixed reactions when I saw that sign. You have made a few mistakes here, as you know, and you can learn from these. I actually thought that a break from Wikipedia and then a new start (with a new username!) might be a good idea for you. Whichever way you decide I would advise keeping a low profile for a while. If, while editing an article, the discussions get heated, I suggest moving along and finding another article to work on. There are so many articles which need attention. Best regards, Martin 08:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This is my last edit; after that I am retiring. I just wanted to tell you that you have email in your inbox. Topology Expert (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for help... we are not very used to WP, but working with WP is very useful!!! Thank you. Duvvuri.kapur (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. You'll get used to it! Martin 10:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks

We uesd this page , but we got no answer, Is it not good to contact users who are specialized in thes items ?? please give us a hint! thanks Duvvuri.kapur (talk) 10:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of David Patchen

An article that you have been involved in editing, David Patchen, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Patchen. Thank you. Chasingsol (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

GA review

Thank you Martin for your review! It is always good to have some new eyes. I'm glad you enjoyed the article! GeometryGirl (talk) 12:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Msgi

Dear User talk:Msgi don't be a wikipedia subscriber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.182.237 (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

to Martin: rejection of addition to article on behavioral targeting and new article on predictive marketing

Hello Martin, Can you please expand a bit on the reason(s) for rejection? I did read the article on posting your first Wikipedia article, and thought I was following all the guidelines listed there. Please advise, thank you. Michaelob (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at those articles again and give you an answer soon. Regards, Martin 23:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Have a great new year, too! Yours Jubilee♫clipman 13:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Cleared

Hey I answered all the requests at Category:Pending Afc requests, except for one, that I'd like you to take a look at. Thanks.--Iamawesome800 15:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, there's another one that I'm not really sure on, so I'd like you to take a look at, it's located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Submissions/Higher Ground (support group).

{{Carnivorous Plants}}

Hi, Martin. I had a quick question for you. How long does it normally take for articles to migrate from one category to another? It's been over a week since the metabanner version with the proper categories (uppercase "Class") have been in use and Talk:Pinguicula moranensis notes that it is in Category:FA-Class carnivorous plant articles, but it doesn't yet show up in the category and still shows up at the lowercase cat. that I went ahead and deleted [8]. I know it can take a while, but this long? Could it be something else? Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 16:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I just made a null edit to Talk:Pinguicula moranensis and it's now showing up in the category. I know it can take a while but I don't know how long precisely! Martin 16:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I didn't know the null edits would prompt the shift. Does that put it "on the top of the pile"? There's a similar situation with the GA-Class categories, with only one article having migrated to the new category, which is why I haven't yet deleted the old ones. I can be patient :-) I'll give it another week or so and then maybe have my bot go through and make a bunch of null edits. Thanks, Rkitko ^(talk) 17:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've cleared out a few categories for you, but patience is probably the best option! Martin 18:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Manchester meetup

It's being re-organised, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Manchester 4. Thanks, Majorly talk 18:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Changes To BHTF template

Could you please tell me why you changed this template without talking to the WP:BH first?----Merry Headcheese!-hexaChord² 21:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Replying on Template talk:BucketheadTF. Martin 22:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I undid your changes since you didn't answer in time :-(. ----Merry Headcheese!-hexaChord² 22:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)