User talk:Polargeo/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

RFA

I'm sorry that your RFA is not looking super excellent. I don't know if my support hurt or help - I hope it helped. Please don't be discouraged, as I'm certain that 3 months of not doing anything controversial would get you over the hump. Anti vandalism edit count inflation would also help, as would supporting a lot of obvious-pass RFA's with nice, unobjectionable messages. Hipocrite (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I am pleased with your support, thanks. My robust defence of myself at times has been picked up on. This is not anything that would affect my duties as an admin but I do feel that there are some that view my edit count of just over 4000 as marginal and are looking for oppose where they would otherwise support. Nevermind, there is some way to go and I hope my answers to the questions will show I could do the job well and would not be a problem in any way. Polargeo (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah well. Don't comment too much - people just don't like it. If someone doesn't want you, winding you up into a long sequence of comment-response is the easiest way to make you look bad to onlookers William M. Connolley (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

File:R2d2lala2.jpg

Not the droid you are looking for

Through your extensive experience of this I know you are right :-) Polargeo (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't really want to be an admin anyway. User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris/Why you don't want to be an admin is a bit underdeveloped. Go bug Boris to finish start writing it. :-) -Atmoz (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a little scary to find my wiki-doppelgänger here in polargeo, someone I had not paid much attention to prior to his RfA. Our user pages even look similar, though your job looks like a lot more fun than mine. :) Gigs (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

While I caution against being prematurely hopeful, I would like to point out that your RfA just hit 70 percent, up from 56 a few days ago, and that's with Kmweber's !vote still included (given that he's presently banned from RfA's I imagine his !vote will not be weighed very much by the closing 'crat(s)). -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

File:Father Winter Solstice.jpg

Ret.Prof (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

Happy holidays. :) Polargeo (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Tito

Just a heads up: While AndreaFox2 and AP1929 are being childish, it's not exactly unprovoked. AlasdairGreen27, and to a lesser extent DIREKTOR have been similarly ill-mannered, and exhibited quite substantial ownership issues. I'm not saying it justifies it, far from it, but I'd recommend against judging them by their most recent comments alone. I'm one of the few unbiased editors left watching it (or at least, mostly unbiased, in that I'm not from the region, nor are any of my ancestors to my knowledge, and only heard of the guy during one of the many WP:ANI disputes it has generated). It's just another front in the Balkans article war, and as long as they aren't violating WP:BLP or unleashing profanity filled screeds against one another, I'm happy to let them use the talk page as they like so long as it is at least a little relevant to the article (it's a hell of a lot better than warring in the article itself).

I'm not trying to warn you off the article, just informing you of why the talk page is in the state that it is. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed i may have been childish without realising it. Sorry. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ruthven College

I added two newspaper articles as references to Ruthven College. - Eastmain (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Tito

Sorry if you have feel that way, i didn't want to sound offensive. Maybe you will understand that i may have not assume goog faith from specific users on this specific subject after (as examples) they had call me "twat" and "monster" and after they had not assumed my good faith since the very beginning on the very same subject. I apologise if you have been offended by my comment/s. However, i don't understand how can i have "a very strong POV" or how can i have "gone too far" as i only pointed out Tito wasn't that important: that's my opinion and you can disagree. Feel free to question my edits. However, i don't think they are POV: i only transported some quotes on wikiquote, i requested citations for controversial passages and i deleted a piece of article which was copyed by an article already linked in Tito's page. Maybe it's you the one who isn't assuming my good faith. If it's not the case, i apologise once more. See ya. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay I just saw your comments and wished to warn you that I thought they had gone too far. I understand DIREKTOR has his own POV on Tito but I was surprised to find the talkpage in such a way. I will come back to the Tito article when I have more time and maybe I can help. Polargeo (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. A third opinion will always be welcome. See you. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Your RFA

Hello Polargeo. I'm sorry to say that your recent RFA has ended without a consensus to promote you to administrator. You did get a considerable number of supporters, and hopefully you'll consider running again in the future. In the meantime, my commiserations. Feel free to contact me if you wish to discuss this further. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for your support in my RfA

For all of those who supported my RfA thanks for trusting me. For all of those who opposed I appreciate many of your reasons and if I didn't know myself better I may have been persuaded to oppose by them. Anyway it is clear that a lot of editors feel that I need to demonstrate that I can stay polite for more than 1 month. Also I agree, a little more experience in areas such as csd may have tipped the balance. I am taking a Christmas break now so may not be online for a week or two. This is nothing to do with my RfA and everything to do with my wife, baby daughter and a house that is in need of some major work.

MERRY CHRISTMAS

Polargeo (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And a Merry Christmas to you. I don't think we had met before your RfA, which I was more than happy to support. Here's to a better result next time (in the New Year)! --Orlady (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Good luck next year Polargeo! Dont let your RFA get you down. You were able to persuade a few people (like myself) into supporting. Good luck next year and ill be sure to support again if you keep up the good work.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate change in the United Kingdom‎

I restored part of the material you removed in your edit, but I agree with the removal of the stuff about the hacking, which is too early to assess in terms of its long term significance. --TS 14:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure :) Polargeo (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Proposed deletion of Jordan Chaviv

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Jordan Chaviv, 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? (By the way, I am not a bot. Let me know if you find this notice unhelpful.) Cnilep (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Prod not useful

Yes the prod template above is not useful. Reminding me of this by a semi-automatic message is unhelpful, particularly as if you had looked you would notice that I edited the article after the prod tag was added and I was in the middle of a discussion with the user who placed the prod tag on the article. I have now replaced the original speedy after confirming that the user was the only substantial contributor even under multiple accounts. Polargeo (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

reply

Okay.

I will contact you when additional information is obtained- I ordered that journal article through the university's library system. It has not always worked for me in the past, hopefully it does work. If not I'll have to resubmit it. Until then I leave the article, but can not gaurantee abuses by IP users which are common on wikipedia. I do feel that the section can undergo some expansion, and I hope that you agree. (LAz17 (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)).

Would you be supportive of an entire separate page that goes more into detail? Like, Casualties in the Bosnian War ? I want to make such a page. (76.29.100.8 (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)).

I would be worried that it is not clear that the page would be Casualties in the Bosnian War or Number of Casualties in the Bosnian War. Two very different articles. I agree that the debate over numbers could be split from the main article but I would need to have a look at the structure of the new page before supporting that. Polargeo (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not logged in when I posted that. I don't have the auto-login thing for some reason. Must have forgotten to renew that. At any rate, I'll see to make such a page today or tomorrow. I get annoyed with bickering about certain topics easily, and then I lose interest. It's too bad. With population data stuff that I have been doing on many municipalities it's easier - no controversey. :) Also, thanks for that article. I found one more thing too, for some early estimates. I think that the page could look good. (LAz17 (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)).

I agree with Polargeo that such an article is potentially useful, but my support would depend on its format. Do we know if there are any other, similar articles on Wikipedia? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

To answer my own question, Category:War casualties is instructive here. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I get lazy easily. :( (LAz17 (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)).

Sorry bro, I turned into a snail. I'll get on it soon I hope. (LAz17 (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)).

I look forward to seeing the outcome Polargeo (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently mr snail, aka myself, is topic blocked from any demographic things... from a map dispute of a truly awful and wrong map. Apparently the mediator and myself to the dispute did not know the rule that "the better map replaces the poorer map". I was a fool to go about trying to delete the poor map - to be precise the propaganda map. So that dispute got me blocked. Gonna wait for some time and request and unblock. (LAz17 (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)).

When you ask for the topic ban to be lifted don't accuse Ceha of anything. Say you wish to do constructive work on the stuff you have mentioned here. If I were you I would also state that you will not delete anything of Ceha's. In the future if there are problems with Ceha's work you will highlight them (without accusations) and other editors can deal with it. I don't think you have to wait to request this just as long as you request it correctly. Polargeo (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Bruin Dems, additional new sources. Fit in where you can.

PBS mentions Bruin here...[[1]] another newspaper [[2]], [[3]], [[4]] [[5]]. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. I don't really know why I care, I'm from the UK and generally find myself inclined towards being deletionist. I suppose I just feel that this group is far more notable than many of the articles we have to live with on wikipedia and that it didn't get a fair heaing in the first AfD. Polargeo (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't agree more. But a few when it's showed they are notable, it makes me interested. Im trying to add it to at least give the article a fighting chance. Hell who knows. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Split?

I have done this to float five trial ballons out their in order to see if anything comes of it? You don't know unless you give it a try, which sometimes discussion takes forever, and it needs to get done! I will respect whatever the decision as a whole is for the career bios and not for each article because you want me to jump through a million different hoops in order to get this achieved. I will do no more right now while this is in a trial period for the Australian Open. I think you forget it was the WP:Tennis community that comes up with standards for tennis articles not each individual page on its own.BLUE_DOG^TN 08:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It takes nothing (or little) to put a tag or a talkpage note with a link to the WP:Tennis discussion. You talk like you are afraid people will oppose some of your splits if they are given a chance. Polargeo (talk) 08:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Also many contributors to these articles will not monitor WP:Tennis and so have never had a chance to see the discussion. The way you are doing it is not the correct way. Wikipeida works by consensus, not consensus if you can keep the masses unaware of the debate Polargeo (talk) 08:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Further WP:Tennis may come up with standards, which I applaud, but these are biogs of living people and no matter how much their lives involve tennis the articles are not sole property of WP:Tennis. Polargeo (talk) 08:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not afraid at all because two are already in support, and three if you count me. I agree that most people don't know about WPTennis, which I will take that under advisement. The tags you mention, what exactly are they? I would like to ask you the the WP:Notability of these articles is exactly because of tennis not because of other reason, which means tennis has plenty of stake in these artcles. Tennis is the reason alone for the notability. Federer = Tennis Player not Federer = Actor nor Federer = Author.BLUE_DOG^TN 08:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I just don't want to be rag tagged around to a hundred different tennis players pages in order to gain consensus one player after the next.BLUE_DOG^TN 08:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to. All you need to do is place the Template:Split_section on the section. Put a link to the WP:Tennis discussion on the talkpage and then give it a few days to see before making the split. It appears you haven't advertised the discussion at all and marking the edits as minor alerted me that there could be an issue. Polargeo (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#Careers_and_article_lengths_(issues) is cursory. You gave it 5 days, you have only really gained support from one other editor. You definitely are doing this the wrong way. I would judge that you haven't even properly gained the support of WP:Tennis yet. You certainly haven't advertised this sufficiently. Polargeo (talk) 08:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not know the proper way to go about it until you brought it up to my attention today. I was trying to fix another editors concerns, which I guess I was a little to overzealous in doing it, but that is done now. I will focus on doing it the way you have alerted me in the future on other articles if this does in fact gain consensus, which it is hard to determine what construes consensus sometimes for somepeople? An FLC only takes 10 days for consensus, which five days is a long time for non-FL or non-FA by the way. But I do understand the need to publisize this more, which I will do in the future.BLUE_DOG^TN 08:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks. You can judge consensus yourself on these matters but you can only do that if you have at least alerted other editors. If they don't respond then go ahead be WP:BOLD and make the changes. Polargeo (talk) 09:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Global Warming

Hello, do you believe in global warming or not?BLUE_DOG^TN 09:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that I wake up in the morning. I believe that birds fly. I think global warming is a complex issue. I don't think scientists in general are trying to hide anything. I do think the political nature of the debate is horrible. I think that on balance the evidence shows that over the last 50 years the rate of warming has been relatively quick and that the primary candidate for this warming is increased emmissions of CO2. I think there is always an uncertainty and would be happy to see the weight of evidence swing the other way :) Polargeo (talk) 09:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Good night, I will talk with you more on this in the future i.e. couple of days!BLUE_DOG^TN 09:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Alan Stevanovic‎;

Unfortunately that's the way things go, otherwise it'd be crystal balling. This has always been the case with football AfDs. As I'm sure you know thousands of kids go through youth systems and are never to be seen again. If he does play in a fully-pro cup/league then it can easily be recreated. --Jimbo^[online] 15:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think he actually passes the general notability guideline though so the usual WP:ATHLETE does not have to be applied. Polargeo (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sister Vincenza Taffarel

I authoered this article. I am currently undergoing a second AFD. I have managed to swing some opinions on the single event notability and why she should be here. Would you mind looking over the article, my responses and expressiong a opinion one way or the other? Thanks, sorry if I am violating a policy but I'm hoping to build a consensus and we need more editors to comment. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have had a look through the deletion debate. At present any admin would have to close this as keep. If some editors feel strongly for a merge they would then have to discuss this on the article talkpage. If I voted in the AfD after you asking me to have a look it would only harm your cause. I am happy to join in a discussion on the article talkpage later. Personally I don't see any big gain in dumping this into the conspiracy article. I often favour a merge because I think wikipedia is generally better served by more comprehensive articles than lots of stubs but currently the Sister Vincenza article is in much better shape than the conspiracy article, which is very poorly referenced, and I wouldn't want to dump a good article into a bad one. Polargeo (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Polargeo. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Rust (2nd nomination).
Message added 16:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 16:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You are a bad person ...

... but funny ...   pablo_hablo. 10:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Pine Island Bay

Hi. I've added some recent information to the Amundsen Sea article regarding the melting of Pine Island Bay. Please take a look at this information and add details and better citations if nessecary. However please do not remove any of the existing or relavent information without discussion. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 21:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Astro. i really do appreciate you are making sourced additions and we should trust sources to an extent. The trouble with the New Scientist addition is that this news write up does not properly reflect the actual paper, which is freely available. Richard Hindmarsh's quotes in the NS do not say what is being infered it is the stuff the journalist has put around the quotes and the context which makes people think the paper is suggesting more than it is. The other part of your addition about an (Amundsen Ice Plain!!! whatever that is) is so scientifically nonsensical that I cannot properly make out what they are refering to and I assure you I am an expert on this area. In fact it is utter rubbish. Polargeo (talk) 11:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I am not going to quibble too much over the redirect that you have created but I would prefer it if you could get it removed to avoid potential confusion. The redirect seems to reinforce an incorrect term (If lots of people were using it and it was incorrect then a redirect would be good but it appears to have mistakenly been used only by a couple of people ever). An "Amundsen Ice Plain" does not exist. If it did it would have nothing to do with the Amundsen Sea, so the redirect is incorrect. I think I can make a wild guess and say that someone is probably reffering to an "ice plain" at the down stream end of Pine Island Glacier. But I wouldn't even bother with a redirect for that because it is a fairly rubbishy and not generally accepted term. Polargeo (talk) 11:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I just felt I had to RfD this. Wikipedia does not benefit from misleading redirects. Polargeo (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have left a bit of your addition from the New Scientist story and corrected it a bit. This is not rubbish but really needs serious qualifications and an attempt to read and understand the science. Wikipedia cannot simply follow popular books and news articles on scientific articles without extreme caution. Polargeo (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

You are recieving this notice as you have participated in the Admin Recall discussion pages.

A poll was held on fourteen proposals, and closed on 16th November 2009. Only one proposal gained majority support - community de-adminship - and this proposal is now being finessed into a draft RFC Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC, which, if adopted, will create a new process.

After tolling up the votes within the revision proposals for CDA, it emerged that proposal 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Tápiószele

Thanks for your help with Tápiószele. But it is a real stub. OK, I know, most of the Hungarian towns' articles are stubs, too, but I think it is better not to have an article at all in a topic, than have a stub. I think too many stubs are in the enwiki. :( I am from huwiki (of course) and we automatically delete these kind of stubs in 5 days. That's because we have only 150 000 articles, and not 1 million! :) --Perfectmiss (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You can always change it back to a redirect if you think that is better but it will not get deleted. Our policy is not to delete redirects unless blatantly useless or harmful. There was no way this would have been deleted. Polargeo (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andre Staffelbach

Andre Staffelbach is a bit better now, with the references clearer. http://www.designmatters.net/features/0105entrepreneurial.htm and http://www2.dmagazine.com/Home/2007/06/06/Andre_Staffelbach__Jo_Staffelbach_Heinz.aspx seem to help establish notability. You might want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andre Staffelbach. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't think they quite make the grade. If the man could not get into an interior design magazine then he would clearly not be notable but the fact that he can does not really confer notability. Polargeo (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Islam - related deletions

I strongly believe that those articles are non-notable. I still have some trouble with the notability criteria on Wikipedia but most of the articles I have sent to AfD might even come under CSD A7. I have read about Islamic history for quite a few years, but I am not an expert. But I have some idea about the important events and persons of Muhammad's period. I have never seen these people's names coming up in the context of any major incident. The only claim most of the articles make is usually that of relationships or mention in one Hadith. To me that is a very very weak claim. I am unable to search for further references right now, as I am nowhere close to my home or Madrassa - Little is being found on the net either. The reason I am not commenting further during the deletion discussions is that I do not want to be mistaken as an expert on the issue. If keep is the result of the discussions, I am fine with it. I have seen that quite a few articles under Wikiproject Salaf have this notability problem. Sahaba is a very large set of people - Even Muslims who just got to saw Muhammad once are considered to be Sahaba and hence there are hundreds and thousands of them. Every one of them does not deserve an article on their own. Prominent Sahaba have appeared in lot of Hadeeth and traditions and getting a source is extremely easy. I would like to bring up this issue at the talk page of the Wikiproject and that would perhaps help things. I would also like to look at the list of Sahaba on Arabic Wikipedia and look at the notability claims and sources there. Right now I am quite busy with some stuff on Malayalam Wikipedia and my real life. Once I get some time, I will look into these things. The problem is that I can't find an expert on these matters on Wikipedia to collaborate with -- Raziman T V (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Lisa Floyed

Hi. I agree that this article is very likely to be yet another non-notable one-liner, but it was still rather WP:BITEy to tag it the same minute it was created. We get quite a lot of flak like this from outside for "unfriendliness" to new users, and one of the most common complaints is the speedy tag that arrives minutes after the first edit. Newbies ought to know enough to put a substantial article together before hitting "save page", but they don't. With something like this, it's best to give it ten minutes or so to see if it developes. Keep up the good work patrolling, though! Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I am just learning the ropes at CSD tagging but I know that if I hadn't tagged it that it would have been tagged within a minute by someone else. The advice is not to tag an article for A1 or A3 and I never would within the first few minutes. However, biogs without any claim of notability are racing into wikipedia almost faster than any other kind of deletable article, it is unfortunate that in order to keep on top of this the easiest thing to do is speedy them. Hopefully the user will recieve their welcome notice in good grace and read the advice. We cannot start nannying the masses of new users who do this. So I feel that a welcome notice and a notification is sometimes the best thing. We are not facebook. Polargeo (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks a bunch for your intervening at the RfA. It looks like a lost cause, but I'll let it run a little longer. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 17:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Death

Large scale deaths such as massacres are within the scope of WikiProject Death. Please replace the project banner to the massacre-related articles that you removed it from. Thank you. --Geniac (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I will not replace the project banner. If you wish to discuss this further then please reach consensus on the article talkpages. But I believe that in this case this should be done with a general message to all of the other wikiprojects that work in the area. Also I refer you to my comment here Polargeo (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I also will not remove the project banner if it is replaced but will seek wider consensus on this issue. I do strongly believe it is very inappropriate for these articles. I am just an editor trying to make sure wikipedia does not unnecessarily hurt people. Polargeo (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I please make a suggestion. Can wikiproject death list these articles if they wish to without their banner appearing on the talkpages?Polargeo (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am starting a thread on this at User talk:Polargeo/death Polargeo (talk) 06:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong place - please take this if you need - to the project page of the death project - which is where this is an issue of the death project and the scope actually is the issue and place to go - thanks - SatuSuro 07:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No you are wrong. This is about the death project on ex-Yugoslavia articles so comes under the scope of all ex-Yugoslavia projects. Polargeo (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It is also an issue I have raised personally and so hosting any discussion here on the issue I have raised seems okay. Polargeo (talk) 07:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay? please show me a policy or principal of wikipedia that says personal pages are specifically the place to host such discussions - I object and if see any more lifting off my comments from the project page - where they belong - I will seek third party comment on what is happening SatuSuro 08:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You wish to argue something that involves at least 6 wikiprojects on your own wikiproject alone. This is not a good way of doing this. And repeating your public comments at a wikiproject in my own talkspace is perfectly reasonable. Go ahead and seek third party comment but you would be wasting peoples time. Polargeo (talk) 09:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I have had other peoples advice at different levels - and I think if you wish to 'reform' wikipedia, or the death project - you are going the wrong way about it.

However we might have a solution - if you are ok with banner shells - if that will that solve your 'sensitivity issue' - would you object to the 16 articles being re-instated into the death project tagging? (I wont do it on principle, but maybe someone else will)

As for the rest, I hope we can move on from all this and not get stuck in it - I have known a few vietnam vets who never came good after their service - any form of war trauma or post mass death trauma is not good for anyone, so I understand an aspect of this - and for that aspect I apologise for extending the conversation out - so I do hope the banners will be a solution.

As for confusing and getting cross wired over policy/content/attitude/ whatever - I hope that some AGF might return and I might insist on asking you some questions about artic issues as when I was in St Petersburg Artic/Antartic museum last September I was trying to make head or tail some issues about russian activity in the artic.. SatuSuro 13:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I will not object to them being reinstated with banner shells. I am sorry for the situation having gotten out of hand. My excuse is that I acted the wrong way around in removing the banners first and talking about it second but I felt at the time I had to do something about it. When I saw I was being accused of POV etc. I then got a little bit defensive. In real life I am not traumatised by this although I admit mass graves are a gloomy place to be. I have spent some serious time on wikipedia trying to stand somewhere between the editors of various ethnicities on the Balkans articles so I do feel I understand these articles to some extent. Calling anything a massacre in the Balkans is a huge political fight, whilst many people on one side will say it is a massacre many on the other side will claim it is not. That is certainly not my POV, I am just highly aware of the political language. Therefore project tagging these articles based on wikipedia language is not really a balanced approach. That said I think there are other issues about the selective approach to death of your wikiproject that are hard for me to agree with but then that is up to the members of your project to decide on and not me. Polargeo (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey its not my project - and I make no claim to be a spokesperson for it either - I dont even have any time or personal interest in a significant part of the project scope because I actually am quite repulsed by certain parts! I personally would rather tag tasmanian islands any day! But that said - my post graduate work was in a cemetery complex in Java, Indonesia - and that offered me some things I did not want to know about either. But this is wikipedia - there are many parts I couldnt be bothered to go - simply because they are not my piece of cheese. Please understand I have nothing personal about this - we just gotta realise that there are things we dont like about the place, but some parts are ok SatuSuro 14:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay sorry. Polargeo (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah dont say that - we got people watching our conversation at the death project and wondering what the hell was going on - I think in the end we were at cross purposes - we are both big enough to both apologise and put our positions - and I understand that is the important part about this damned zoo - sometimes we cannot get to this point with other editors - they are such scumbags - at least we know that (and what I remember how we got the bosnian issues reported here in Australia) there are something that really are bad in this world that we cannot do anything about - and that frustration can actually make things worse for some people - lets hope we can keep editing and move on - and realise that there are always ways to make the place better - at least you and I are not in the current BLP wars - they are worse than crevasses man :( SatuSuro 14:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't be so sure of that. I have touched on those wars at AfD. In reality such a simple thing to get right and yet two sides at each other's throats and both going completely over the top. If sources for a non-negative, uncontraversial BLP can be found in the first few hits of a quick google search then deleting it as unreferenced serves nobody. Of course negative or contraversial statements in BLPs require a higher standard of source and I have no objection to these being deleted quickly with the burden of proof being on the editor who added the statements. I have crossed many crevasses in my time and I would sooner cross some more big ones in the middle of a white-out than get into serious debate on this issue. Polargeo (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Heheh :0 - we might have talked our long way around and through an issue or two but I do like your responses at times - cheers SatuSuro 14:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Afd

Yes I happily withdraw that Afd, what about Andrew? Off2riorob (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I just don't know about Andrew. I cannot seem to find much in the way of independent reliable coverage. Best to let that run for a while and we can have another look at it. Polargeo (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

See also ..Stefan_de_Rothschild . Off2riorob (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

and the company from that website Rothschild Estates .. http://www.rothschild-estates.com/# I can't find anthing solid about it? Have a read of the disclaimer , and there isn't a phone number on the website for contact. Off2riorob (talk) 11:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspect Stephan currently comes under the class of rich heir who has no individual notability at present. And Rothschild Estates clearly exists, I did see one ref that it holds property worth around £20 Billion. Follow some of the links from Rothschild Estates Polargeo (talk) 11:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I followed them, a huffington blog and a primary source for a takeover that is major big and I searched aroung for news of that and went to the other company sites and nothing, I think its a scam. Off2riorob (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks I'll look into it some more then. Polargeo (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

One of those links was to the Washington Post! But you are right needs more checking. Polargeo (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes the washington post is the only third party thing that supports the company's existence so far, and that is a pledge of 2 and a half million a couple of weeks ago to Haiti, a pledge..ok it is the WP anyone can get fooled, where is the rest of the donations the company has made over the years very strange, someone clever could check when the website was put online, I forget how but there is a site online that give you things like that and hits to the site but I forget he name. Off2riorob (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay I have checked Burke's peerage and agree this is very suspicious. Polargeo (talk) 12:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

See this edit history, same guy also created the others..[6] Off2riorob (talk) 12:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I'd already found that. I checked the website history using this link [7] and it drew a blank so yes hoax. Well done. He obviously added in one real person to try to hide his tracks. Polargeo (talk) 12:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

if that site is a hoax it is very elaborate and should be reported to someone somewhere. Off2riorob (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed Polargeo (talk) 12:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I will try and track the host of the domain and contact them. Also may need reporting user on wikipedia for possible checkuser and blocking. Polargeo (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Heres another one.. Nathaniel_Mayer_de_Rothschild this one doesn't look real either, have a look for him for me. Off2riorob (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I'm off for some luch but will get back on to this in an hour or two. Polargeo (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Burke's peerage has a (2d Nathaniel Mayer; born 1836; died 1905) but Rothschild not (de) Rothschild so yes looks suspicious. Polargeo (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Right thanks, lets look more later, I don't want to claim its a fraud to have it jump up and go fooled you > Off2riorob (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes cool down for a bit, have some sandwiches. But I think you are right on this one. Polargeo (talk) 12:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The website Rothschild Estates not only is it recent but it is also provided by NameCheap.com. There is no way this could be a 20 billion company therefore hoax. I have sent a couple of emails for confirmation and await replies but when I have this we (or someone on wikipedia) should shut this down. Polargeo (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree, I had a look and Google has no archive of it either, fraud I would say big time for big money, clearly it we can find who and where a reportable to the police for further investigation, damn they had a mention in the new york times that they had pledged two and a half million to Haiti..and that web site was very professional indeed.Well, thanks for joining in with me on the investigation. Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Off2riorob. All seems to be sorted now. At least on wikipedia. I agree it could be big time fraud or it could have been an individual named Stefan wanting to get some girls! But an individual who has got the ability to make a professional looking website so potentially very worrying. Polargeo (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

awarded by User:HalfShadow with this edit.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7