Please reconsider your Opposition to the name change of The Leigh Technology Academy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Leigh_Technology_Academy This is what the school is called. It was once The Leigh City Technology College, but when the edit was made to the new name of The Leigh Technology Academy, obviously the The got lost in translation.
Hi Necrothesp. I'm not sure I follow your reasoning for deproddings like these. My understanding was, if the martial art Bugei Juhappan was decided to be non-notable, then elements of it would be considered non-notable as well—just as characters of a non-notable book would not have Wikipedia articles after the article on the book itself was deleted. What is your reasoning for considering these elements independently notable? I just wanted to ask because I am considering AfDing the articles now, but figured I should discuss the matter with you first—maybe I'm missing something here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I notice you removed a PROD with this edit [1] without addressing the issue raised in the PROD of there not being reliable sources to establish notability of the claim. Your edit comment appears to have been based upon the single cited article, which doesn't appear to satisfy the reliable sources requirement. Could you clarify if you view that short single article as a sufficient reliable source? Or if you are relying on some other source? The article still would benefit from the addition of some secondary reliable sources to establish the notability claim, no? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
del cat - Why? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about the other services, but within CAP it is made very clear that Cadet Staff Sergeant is a very distinct and separate grade from regular staff sergeants. Having a section in that article is fine, and that might be a good place to add the CAP grade insignia image, but it needed a mention separately. A Cadet Staff Sergeant is not a Staff Sergeant, is not a military non-commissioned officer, is not even in the military. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I noticed you just removed this category from Thirteen Days (film) and The Missiles of October. Why don't you think they qualify as historical films? JustinTime55 (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I've initiated a move discussion on this since I question whether the initials are most commonly used. Mangoe (talk) 10:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
The British Army terms it as "http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/regiments/3471.aspx The Parachute Regiment" not just "Parachute Regiment".Cibwins2885 (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey there Necrothesp, Thanks for recommending my article Siegfried Marseille to be kept , i really appreciate it as its my first article ive created :) Goldblooded (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The 2nd Indian Cavalry Division contained a number of British Army cavalry units from formation. Does this make it an Army of Indian division rather than a (British) Indian division? GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.
The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.
To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 14:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
FYI. This CfD and this one] have re-opened the topic. Ephebi (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I think you may wish to contribute here. Moonraker (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Necrothesp …
You removed my ((Prod)) from this article with the comment, "I'm inclined to believe that a film that has received a Golden Globe nomination should be considered notable" … unfortunately, that is not one of the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (films) … also, the article is totally lacking multiple WP:RS, since an IMDb link is insufficient, no matter how many times it is linked.
Sadly, an article can only be PROD'd once, and I currently lack the energy to initiate a WP:AfD. <Sigh!> Happy Editing! — 70.21.24.28 (talk · contribs)01:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I saw you commented on the request to move that I did so I'm just dropping you a line. There is an ongoing discussion over whether the term FGC should be retained now that the title has been changed to FGM. (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Female_genital_mutilation#Terminology). More input is required to determine whether the consensus on the usage of FGM in the title extends to the article, thanks. Vietminh (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Re: F. C. Ricardo. Can you please point me to the relevant policy that states that people have to have been born or grown up in a place to go in its 'People from...' category. I remember the discussions on changing these over from 'Natives of ...' and as I remember one of the main reasons for this was so that they could include residents as well as natives. This is backed up by Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#By_place and there are thousands upon thousands of articles which use these categories in this way. Verica Atrebatum (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Category:Alumni of St. Patrick's Grammar School, Armagh, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Cerejota (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Cerejota (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Cerejota (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on William Nicoll requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Kerowyn Leave a note 02:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For your even-handed decisions as to "speedy deletion" tagged articles; and efforts to make Wikipedia better organised, I award you this barnstar. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC) |
Hi there, can you please have another look at Talk:John Munro (New Zealand politician) and see whether you can shed some further light? Schwede66 19:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Classy sarcasm aside, I am new to Wikipedia. Personal feelings are irrelevant, my CO ordered me to change the wiki title. (My organization directly oversees the Silver Wings). Looking back I see that you did post a comment against it. Is that considered unanimous disagreement? I also see that you are an administrator - where can I find Wikipedia policy regarding article naming conventions? I didn't see your comment, certainly meant no offense, wasn't trying to hijack the article or violate Wikipedia policy. As for the title, it is the correct name of the unit (not of the most pompous one). Thanks. Blueferocious (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Your response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clerk of Tynwald was completely uncalled for. If your read my comments, you'll see that I specifically said that Americans don't see "clerk" as an important position. And in the US, secretaries are never junior to clerks.
I wasn't advocating bias for one country or another, I was pointing out a difference in how terms are used and asking editors to clarify the language. The point of the talk page post was to explain why the position seemed unimportant to me and provide guidance to rescuers on how to avoid other editor's thinking the same thing. And I would be shocked if the government of the Isle of Man really only has 30 employees. The schools only probably have 100 employees.
Instead of snarking at me, maybe you should improve the article so dumb Americans like me get it. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
It is in my opinion that you were a bit past WP:Civil, and WP:NPA on that one. "You are clearly too arrogant" is rather surprising to see from an Admin. No disrespect intended.--SKATER Is Back 21:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Necrothesp/Archive 7! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
Hy there, you seem to have objected to the deletion of the article Araby (Warhammer). However I'm puzzled by your reasons: "deprod; prod all or none; deleting piecemeal is not helpful". So if I understood you correctly in your opinion I should make a collective deletion request of several articles (prod all)? ALL Warhammer Fantasy articles that are sorely lacking?
IMHO such a step would be quite difficult (after all, every article is an individual case). Some lack any sources whatsoever, while other articles are about some minor subject of the setting (i.e.: fail Notability). I'm not even sure how I should proceed. Could you offer me some advice? Thanks. Flamarande (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed you commented on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Missoula, Montana. There is a related discussion on some of the buildings from that list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Interstate Center (Missoula). Any insights and opinions you can offer would be appreciated. Thank you --JonRidinger (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I am interested in why you are interested in the entry for Sir Andrew Beattie. I updated the article in August as part of family history research and I am curious as to your connection to Sir Andrew. He is my paternal great-great-grandfather. Thanks for your interest in the article.
Thank you for taking the time to look at this article. Perhaps you can share your wisdom on this matter, and I can gain some understanding from your thought process. Here is mine:
That's it for now. Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
FYI. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Inchture Village railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tramway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited William Taylor (police officer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hackney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, re this and similar edits: please note that the |notarchive=
parameter is no longer used by ((London Gazette))
(it was removed in January 2009), and in fact using it will put the page into hidden Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters. I see that quite a lot of your User: subpages are also in that category. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Treasure Island (2012 TV miniseries), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ben Gunn and Blind Pew (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The rule for challeging a proposed deletion is: "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason" You didn't improve the article nor mention mention any reason. You should only tell your disagreement on the article's Talk page. Wikipedia has rules. Let's abide by them. 87.67.128.56 (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, reply not necessary anymore. I made further reading on the matter. USSR wins. 87.67.128.56 (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Sources in article say he received the GC so have reverted your edit. Regards --palmiped | Talk 16:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Modern Records Centre, University of Warwick, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages National Union of Students, General Federation of Trade Unions and National Federation of the Blind (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping the "List of last occurences" in your archive , Personally i think it was a shame it was deleted (as do a fair amount of others) but thanks for preserving it, its really good for reference material :) User:Goldblooded (Talk/Discuss)(Complain) 11:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh and also, would you mind if i edited it from time to time and perhaps tidied it up a bit for our own personal use? User:Goldblooded (Talk/Discuss)(Complain) 22:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, just in case it's no longer on your watch list, may I point out that by restoring that article, you've also restored the copyvio, which is once again readily accessible through the article history. Why, anyway? The remains of the article is now nothing more than a definition with attached link farm. Useless. It could have been re-started easily enough by anyone with somthing useful to tell about the Institute. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I dont understand your RV on this page. The only thing i see which might be the "messed up graphics" you refer to are the belt images overlapping the bottom of the brazil section and top of denmark, but that was the case before, and has nothing to do with my edit Stonewaters (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
|}
which closes a table, and altered style="cellpadding=2
to style="cellpade="cellpadding=2
which screwed the formatting of the next table. The removal of the marker to close the table meant that the table was considered to extend to the bottom of the article, breaking the format of everything after the point where it should have been closed. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)|}
and a {|
joined together two tables which should not have been joined, but the join was not "clean" for a variety of reasons, including the fact that neither |"#09007A"|
nor |bgcolor="#090dding=2 cellspacing="0" width="100%"
are valid Wiki markup. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
You may be interested in this discussion.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
As 'Old Fooian' is being contested again at Categories for Discussion I have made a suggestion at the CfD talk page which you might be interested in. Ephebi (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Art Malik, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Upstairs Downstairs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Necrthesp. A while ago, you !voted for delete on an article I had tried to help write on a what I sincerely believed was a good-faith topic that would non-controversially improve Wikipedia. You felt my time did not improve Wikipedia, so I wanted to tell you a little bit about how that feels when you're on the other side of a delete.
You see, my time is surprisingly valuable to me. I have family duties, I have work duties, I balance them all.
I gave Wikipedia a gift of my time. I gave it a little piece of my life.
If Wikipeda keep my gift and improves it, I will be vastly more inclined to donate even more of my time in the future. But if you take my hand-made gift and visibly throw it in the trash, I will have a different reaction.
I probably won't feel very welcome here. I may feel "Wikipedia" doesn't like me or want me. I may not feel very open to giving Wikipedia any of my own time. After all why waste more time on things that will just get deleted??
You need to be aware-- delete !votes have a very real, lasting emotional consequence that cripples editor morale. Make sure you realize that. Make sure you remember that "Delete !votes" carry a cost to our mission.
I do understand-- we must have deletions-- bad-faith contributions, illegal contributions, etc. But when good-faith people are trying to do good-faith things, deletion is a very insensitive tool.
Please try to remember this in the future. You're not just deciding on whether to keep a single article-- you're deciding on whether to keep authors. --HectorMoffet (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Two new cfds propose the renaming of some twenty categories. Most of those who took part in last year's cfd "Former pupils by school in the United Kingdom" seem unaware of them, so I am notifying all those who took part in that discussion, to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Please consider contributing here and here. Moonraker (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with your page move of this article. Belgium is a country with three official languages French, German, and Dutch. Using only the French name does not reflect a neutral point of view. We also try to use English on the English Wikipedia, but I can see how many would see this one like the Pour le merite. If you are going to move it to the French name you had best use proper French grammar. Croix de Guerre imposes English grammar rules on the title, in French it would be Croix de guerre. Take a look here if you will not take my word: fr:Croix de guerre 1914-1918 (Belgique). EricSerge (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I noticed you de-proded a whole batch of articles which I had attached the tag and I'm a bit confused since administrators seem to look at it differently at the tennis project which I frequent. First if any of these articles had been made today the "new page patrollers" would have deleted them right out of the chute telling the creator he needs sources. If it's missed, when we find it we put it up for proposed deletion and if for any reason (hopefully a good) someone disagrees they remove the tag and we'll then nominate it for deletion. Of course that's more headaches for the backlogged administrators and their helpers but that's the way we've mostly done it. Here there were pages with no sources and the same tags complaining about it for 2-4 years... some living biographies. I don't think it was unreasonable to assume no one cares about this series of articles and if perchance they do they can exercise their right to simply remove the tag. I don't know whether you were using your right as a contributor or using your power as an administrator in reverting them with a "deprod; if you want sources to be improved you should not prod - that's for uncontroversial deletion" because it looked pretty straight forward to label them as such to me. I guess I need a much better explanation so I don't run into this again the next time I'm directed by bots and editors to look at some poor articles especially since it seems to work differently in other sections of this wikipedia. My other alternative seems to nominate them for deletion because of their long long neglect but that seems like it would have been the next step to take. Remember these articles aren't just missing a reference or two or been tagged for 3 months. They mostly have no references and been tagged for three years. The articles in this series that had some of the need refs but had been tagged for an extended time I simply deleted the unref'd text and left the rest. But if I had done this to non-ref'd articles the page would be completely blank. I thought proding would be the better option. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited The Duellists, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Captain and 100 Days (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I created Nazir Ahmad (murderer) back in 2005 after the case was a decent sized news story. It was well before naming conventions had been standardized and I was a relatively new editor although after someone moved the page you moved it back to (murderer). Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazir Ahmad (murderer) I see the AfD was open for about 14 hours. Clearly the article as it stood (with all references removed) violated BLP. I do think we should take the article back to a sourced version and have a full AfD on noteworthiness of Nazir as opposed to quick deletion without making sure previous versions of the article weren't generally acceptable. It might get deleted. I'd have to review current standards to see if it should. I think it would be best to put the article back to the "10:01, 7 April 2006" revision and the list for deletion. The article should be renamed and we should delete all of the unsourced material after that. gren グレン 18:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Escape from Sobibor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ullrich Haupt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)