User talk:Deb: Difference between revisions

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or drop me a line. BTW, you have been pretty busy with some British history artilces - Good work! Cheers! --maveric149

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5

Is there is a reason you only blocked them for 60 minutes? I mean, they severly violated WP:CIVIL! I'm not mad or anything, but was there a reason behind it? NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say 24 hours would be reasonable; they violated a fundamental policy of Wikipedia - perhaps they didn't know of it yet, but from what I've seen, personal attacks and uncivilness are tolerated much less than most things, even repeated vandalism. Thanks for accepting my input and I apologise if I sounded too demanding or harsh. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your reasoning. Perhaps 60 minutes is enough after all. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deb, sorry to keep coming to you with complaints (is there a list of Admins for Welsh Wiki Project, or other procedures to follow when an user is mis-behaving?) An unregistered user 172.207.1.234 (and now 172.143.254.12) has been editing projected population figures for Cardiff, despite many requests on the talk page for him/her to stop or provide ANY sources. Judging be his/her replies it's probably quite a young person. The subject in question isn't really that important, and are only projections anyway, but this person refuses to accept the opinions of others or follow Wikipedia rules/guidelines. I don't think a 24 hour block will achieve much as he/she seems to came back every few days, but as Cardiff is quite a major article a blanket block on unregistered users might be unpopular. --Rhyswynne 13:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diolch. But of course you don't have to look for a Welsh admin just because it's the Cardiff article - quite right!--Rhyswynne 12:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ma'am, Clarkies Newspaper is a perfectly credible newspaper, you can look it up on google, and there was no reason for you to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genevakrops (talk • contribs) 17:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice addition to Charles Paget ... I started out with the traitor and then the admiral and only got the notts MP by mistake ... your help is appreciated Victuallers 17:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC). My only aim was humour ms. If your bored then look st Charles Paget the admiral which Im tidying for did you know...tomorrow? if not then see you around ... impressive gnoming Victuallers 18:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did You know -- its there NOW

On 31 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles Paget (vice-admiral), which you inspired by choosing the wrong %^&&* picture. If you know of another picture which you could supply to a recently created article, then please think first!. You can apply on the Did you know? talk page.

Entirely in jest Victuallers 14:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I just started creating a page for the band Fist of Dishonor. Although the page was by no means fully complete, I believe I did have a valid outline. I see that the deletion log has a comment of "not notable", but there are abundance external, objective sources about the band Fist Of Dishonor - I linked to four separate reviews of the band from independent music periodicals, for example. I plan to link to additional sources as well, although I had not finished the article. In addition, I am not associated with the band or any members of the band in any way, nor do I even particularly consider myself a fan of the band - I was writing the article because the band is particularly novel in their approach. I would appreciate more information about why the article was deleted and what I can do in the future to ensure that the article won't be deleted.

Thanks, Will Hertling

WilliamHertling 22:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deb,

Thanks for taking the time to give me some great "getting started" links on my user page. I truly appreciate that.

From the criteria that you listed for musicians or ensembles, I believe that Fist of Dishonor is notable according to these three criteria:

• It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable: I found five different newspaper articles, including three that were long, in depth reviews of the band.
• Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable...: In this case, Fist of Dishonor contains a member who is notable for being an influential member of Rock and Roll Camp for Girls, itself a notable subject.
• Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city: Fist Of Dishonor is notable that they are influencing the local Portland scene with their unique combination of martial arts and music.

If you would please consider undeleting the article, I'll make sure to use the links you gave me to improve the article. Thanks, Will

WilliamHertling 23:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support with respect to my request for adminship, which successfully closed today with a count of 47 support, 1 oppose. If you ever see me doing anything that makes you less than pleased that you supported my request, I hope to hear about it from you. See you around Wikipedia! Accounting4Taste 05:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The November 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 15:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, remember, the fifth of November? Thank you to everyone who participated in my Request for adminship, which was successful at 50/5/0 on November 5th, 2007. It became, as you may know, rather contentious toward the end (though fortunately no gunpowder was involved), and I appreciate the work of other Wikipedians to keep it focused. --Thespian 03:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Idea store canary wharf, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ~Matticus ^T_C 12:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Deb! Might you page protect Politics of Wales? Normalmouth consistantly removes sourced information, and I have asked for non-biased eyes to review the page, but they can't if he keeps changing it back. While I have included every new point he brings up, when he redits the page he removes sourced information, which I do not think is fair. I have asked for others to peer review the page, pending their imput I was hoping we can get a freeze on the page so as to not lose vaulable information. TY VM! Drachenfyre 14:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I wrote on the Politics of Wales page that I do welcome contrabutions, and am willing to work with NM on issues. But feel strongly relaible sourced material should be the maintained.

You had made comment that you agree with a few points of view of NM, and I welcome that, but can you tell me what they may be? Clearly I wish to remove point of view from the artical, and do welcome constructive criticism. Drachenfyre 21:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he is being genuine, then clearly we can work together, however his comments are off the chain and belligerent. In his editing process, he eliminates all other references, this can not be ccorrect. If Davies and Morgan are at a different point of view on a particular interpertation, in my opinon both should be. Whenever NM adds something sourced, I do add it to the material, but in exchange I am verbally accosted. One simply has to view his past interactions with other editors to get a taste of his "working together" works. Drachenfyre 23:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deb, Im so fustrated beyund words! How can someone be allowed to contribute when they are so hostile and belligerent to other editors? NM has a history of bullying those that do not agree with his pov, is there not any other forum to address his attitude and to bring grievence to? While I admit my own edits could use other editors going through them, I do not trust NM given his history. What to do? Should I quite in fustration as so many others do?Drachenfyre 23:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oy! Just give him the artical. Up until my edits, back in Februray and now, he has not contributed anything of substance to the artical at all. Then, when I contribute, he wishes to add more alter the artical.I dont think I can trust him to be non-point of view, and again he drives another editor awayDrachenfyre 00:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It just didn't sound right to me for an article to start with "This article is about..." --Gawaxay (talk • contribs • count) 16:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be a template that says "This article's lead section may need revising." It does sound a little strict to say "This article's lead section needs to be deleted entirely and rewritten from scratch!" -Gawaxay (talk • contribs • count) 16:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're an admin??!! I didn't see any indication of that at all! I thought you were just a normal user! (but hey, excluding deleting, blocking, blah, blah, blah, what are they?) I want to be an admin someday... --Gawaxay (talk • contribs • count) 21:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I said someday. I know you have to build up a certain amount of experience to be one. That's what I've been doing since I started, although it wasn't always for the purpose of becoming an admin someday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gawaxay (talk • contribs) 21:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I think you were trying to discourage me? (Sigh...it seems that nothing I say ever gets across right... forget that) Oh, duh. The "boringness." (just realized what you meant) Oh, no, I didn't think you were trying to discourage me. I'm sure administration can be boring sometimes. Trust me. Trying to copy stuff like templates from Wikipedia to that wiki I had once wasn't exactly fun. Well, back to my uber-ultra-major task on MechQuest... --Gawaxay (talk • contribs • count) 21:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if your a admin, protect Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace from non regiestered and newly created user edits, theres a big war between ip's and the good users of wikipedia.

if your not a admin, find one to do it, because, unlike the UD there isn'ty a administration link on the interaction sidebar, making seeing the deltion, speedy deltion, vandal and other thing,s very hard to do for us normals.--Cody6 (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you look at said changes, the guests revert edits made by good users, they change things luike saying chuck norris played maul, and that lukas films was a distributor, they reverted the edits that reverted there vandalism, jsut protect it so the guests cant do stupid vandals, ok? --Cody6 (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support - I look forward to wielding my newly-granted powers (evil grin...!) Hey-ho, off to CAT:CSD I go. Diolch unwais eto. Bencherlite^Talk 19:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - the naked Christopher Neame you asked about at Talk:Christopher_Neame is in The Cleopatras (1983). I didn't know it was a first for the BBC though, and his legs are carefully crossed throughout! BTLizard (talk) 13:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This page was deleted for advertising. I'm not sure what the rules are, but is there any acceptable way I can link from the List of countries and outlying territories by total area to my website. I'm sure I've read about other websites and applications on wikipedia in the past.

thanks,

Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simem (talk • contribs) 21:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		A Barnstar Point
		Awarded for a really well-done integration of a list of trivia into useful article prose, at Mark J. Williams — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: In future you should probably use an edit summary more like "Integrated trivia into prose" or something other that "removed trivia section", which can be alarming. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am new to Wikipedia and still learning. I would like to edit the content of the page I submitted so that it is usable on the site.

I would appreciate any tips so that I can edit and re-submit.

Best regards Dixon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vancouver mktg (talk • contribs) 22:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to help me with this. I was trying to use the listing for icrossing as my example. Maybe this is not a good one to use. Monitorfuse (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Awarded to Deb for all of your tireless contributions. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 03:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article on which you previously commented has been proposed for deletion again, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handbra (second nomination). You may wish to comment.DGG (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Coleraine college 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 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 assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lordjeff06 (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, it just looked like blatant boosterism to me. But hey, it looks better already. Have a good one! Lordjeff06 (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am just about to move the citation you supplied to the sentence following: as far as I can see it was the fact of Henry commanding the troops at the battle of Shrewsbury that is at issue, and not the remarkable medical intervention. All the best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: have you had a chance to look over Davy Gam recently? It's gone from underweight to, arguably, overblown in a few months. I haven't the knowledge to judge what's relevant and what's not. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i am trying to transfer images from Wales wiki, but can not read the specific copyright. I wish to transfer over the image on Lewis Valentine and on Penyberth, and the old logo for Plaid Cymru. Can you help me read where the poster there got the free use image licscening so that I can then trasfer those images here? (yes, I took a minor wikibreak, hehe) Drachenfyre 03:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Viennese composers, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. – Cgingold 19:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot -- 10:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a short article about the Strobist blog that teaches photographic lighting for free. I genuinely didn't intend it as blatant advertising.

Can you please help me identify was there a specific part I should reformat (was it bad to list the sponsors of the blog?) or would the article need a complete rewrite?

Also, I didn't know to take a local copy of the source code of the article. Do you have access to the source code, so I could start working on the article?

Thank you,

mtreinik (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. What are your thoughts? Michael Sanders 13:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then, thanks. I doubt my chances, but if you're happy to nominate me, I'd be grateful. Michael Sanders 14:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, and if you ever want me to give you a hand with anything (whether this succeeds or not), let me know. Michael Sanders 14:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, no problem. It's a bit disappointing, but hardly surprising: and, as was raised on the RFA page, most of what I do doesn't require admin powers, and I'm not a power-hungry vandal hunter, so it's hardly a palpable hit. Thanks anyway, and, like I said, if you ever need my help in anything, don't hesitate to let me know. Michael Sanders 22:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, perhaps. Sorry about that. ;) Michael Sanders 22:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Deb. Surplu^TalkToMe! 18:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing Mike Kirkland (coach) on notability. I should have put an "under construction" tag on it, but you're welcome to review at this time.

As a collegiate athletic director, he's considered a part of Wikipedia College Football project, and his unprecedented success in women's track & field (over a decade as head coach and never losing to a conference team) is truly a mark of success. But have a look!--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just wanted to let you know that I undid your merge of Angelo Fabbroni. I merged it to Angelo Fabroni because most of the sources I've seen, including the French Wikipedia at fr:Angelo Fabroni, spell it with one B. I left a note to this effect at talk:Angelo Fabroni, but wanted to drop you a line because you worked on the redirect. Abby 01:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining what needed to be improved to get the listing approved. You have been a great help

Monitorfuse (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)MonitorFuse[reply]

Hi Deb, can you help me with a wee problem. I can't embed a photo within an 'infobox' on an article, and don't know why. The article is here --Darren Wyn Rees (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Bencherlite^Talk 20:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanking you both. --Darren Wyn Rees (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Bencherlite^Talk 21:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Kilbride, Lynn Strait and David Lewis may not be notable in the UK, but they are notable in the USA. Even if certain names are only notable in one part of the world, they still count as notable. New World Man (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The births and deaths on the individual day articles already include many names that are generally unknown here in the USA. Birth and death listings in individual day articles Americo-centric? Hardly.

Two of my sources for adding extra names to the "Births" and "Deaths" sections are deadoraliveinfo.com and nndb.com - though I double-check individual's birth/death dates from those sites and see if they are correct before adding them to the "Births" and "Deaths" sections - some of the dates listed on those sites are incorrect.

Even if the bio linked to is just a stub, it doesn't disqualify them from being listed. In fact, it just may give Wikipedia editors incentive to expand the stub.

New World Man (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For at least the third time, please stop changing year pages from the house style to your personal preferred style. Some of us went to a lot of effort to devise this house style and then implement it, and by undoing our work, you are wasting everybody's time. -- Smjg (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the GGGGGG Grandson of Rev. John Thomson, and I liked the article on Rev. John Thomson very much. His unnamed daughter, due to her first name lost to time, married my GGGGG Grandfather John Finley. The Finley's settled originally on South River in Augusta County, Virginia in about 1738-1740 and helped found Tinkling Springs Presbyterian Church in 1740 which is the oldest church in the Shenandoah Valley. The unnamed daughter of Rev. John Thomson and mother of Elizabeth Finley, who married James Gillespy, is discussed in a note written by Rev. Richard Sankey in Prince Edward County on Jan. 4, 1764, which identifies Elizabeth as his wife's niece. Rev. Richard Sankey's wife was Sarah Thomson, daughter of Rev. John Thomson. See J.G. Herndon, "Some of the Descendants of the Rev. John Thomson (1690-1753)," VA Magazine of History & Biography, LI (1943): 394-404; Genealogies of VA Families (5 vols. Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing, 1981) 5:454-464. Marriage bond, January 5, 1764 shows Elizabeth's father, John Finley, Sr. "with his consent,"; uncle by marriage, Robert Baker surety; consent witnessed by Baker and John Finley, Jr. (Prince Edward Co., VA, Marriage Bonds, 1754-1850, LDS film #0033254). Finally, the first minister Tinkling Springs Presbyterian Church petitioned for was Rev. John Thomson noted in the book The Tinkling Spring Headwater of Freedom by Howard McKnight Wilson Th.D. James and Elizabeth (Finley) Gillespy were my GGGG Uncle and Aunt. My GGGG Grandfather, William Finley, was her brother. See more at my website at http://www.smokymountainsphotogallery.com/abph.html I contacted Hampton Sydney College directly, and they do not recognize Rev. John Thomson's school for boys as the precurser of Hampton Sydney College. Robert Baker may have been the brother of Samuel Baker who married Elizabeth Thomson another daughter of Rev. John Thomson, and Rev. John Thomson died in 1753 at the Baker home in North Carolina according to an article, Faith and Works written by Madison McElwain.

Hi, I've reverted/undone your removal of certain names from the birth lists on the grounds that it is grounded in POV. Although I'm not sure if there's actual policy or concensus among editors as to who belongs in these lists, there currently does not seem to be any notability requirements above having your own article (ie. only red links and redirects are removed). Also your reasons for removing these names (reducing size and "restoring balance") are, from what I can see, not stated goals of the articles or the affiliated Wikiproject. While I agree that it may be a good idea to eventually remove people who barely meet notability requirements for their own article from these lists, there appear to be no policies or guidelines to direct such revisions at this time, making such judgement calls problematic. Thanks. --TM 05:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have no issue with adding (non-American) names, in fact I think it's great, the only issue is the removal of names, since then we enter POV debates over notability where there are no guidelines, policies, etc. The Wikiproject you cited (at a quick glance) seems to support this: "Generally, this project concentrates upon remedying omissions (entire topics, or particular sub-topics in extant articles) rather than on either (1) protesting inappropriate inclusions, or (2) trying to remedy issues of how material is presented" [my emphasis].

And yes, the birth lists are currently very long for articles concerning the 1970s and 1980s simply because it seems to be easier to become "notable" today, or we go through more "celebrities" or whatever. I expect the birth lists to continue to grow and I think eventually we'll just split off the birth lists from the year articles or differentiate them based on whether they concern sports or entertainment (those two seem to be the biggest groups). But again, I see removing names of people, who have been (ostensibly) considered notable by Wikipedia editors, without guidelines or discussion as problematic. While I think the length of the birth sections will eventually become a problem, I don't think this is the way to go about solving it.--TM 23:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I agree that we don't need to list every birth, but currently there are no guidelines, policies, or discussions, let alone some form of consensus to determine which names to include and which not to. I don't think all reality TV "stars" or all porn "stars" should be listed (let alone have articles), but as long as they have articles it apparently means that the community has recognized them as "notable". Others will think that every athlete need not be listed, others every actor, singer, etc. I think the lists will eventually need to be shortened and I agreed with the majority of your removals (a couple I completely disagreed with), but I don't think that one or two editors should begin making sweeping judgements concerning an issue like notability, which is so subjective. It could just be me, so if this is something you feel needs to be addressed now I suggest starting a discussion somewhere (maybe the year article wikiproject) to see what others think. --TM 09:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing relevant to this issue on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Years page that I can see says "The Births section list all births in that year, divided into month section" [my emphasis]. Is there some section I missed that said individual editors get to decide which entries are notable enough to be listed? If the WikiProject page says to list all births, and you are removing births, how are you not out of step with its policies? --TM 16:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reference, and I take no offence. I don't enjoy debating flimsy Wikipedia logic and goals and everything, my only goal was to avoid more endless, tedious discussions in the future. I'll just put back the few names that I don't think qualify as minor celebrities. If you want to debate those, it's up to you. --TM 08:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I think I do understand NPOV, although I don't fully understand your criticism of my understanding of it. --TM 11:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not undesrstand why the article I created was deleted. I cited information and I believe it all was noteworthy. Please explain as to why you went ahead and deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielquasar (talk • contribs) 12:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, --Elonka 10:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for deleting the article. I was tagging it for AfD. Now what do I do with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The zyrtec? I had not even logged it yet. --Evb-wiki (talk) 12:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, you are cordially invited to join a discussion on this matter at WikiProject British Royalty. Yours in anticipation, ^† DBD 16:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deb -- We are at a pivotal time in the global fight against prostate cancer. This week alone saw the deaths of rocker Dan Fogelberg and producer Frank Capra and the diagnosis of rocker Stephen Stills. As awareness soars, grass roots all over our planet are stirring to action. One of the most influential thinkers (and doers) on this issue is Arnon Krongrad. His writing, both at the professional level (original dietary prevention trial; policy statements for the World Health Organization, Behind the Mask), are important and help to focus and energize the base. Anybody who knows prostate cancer knows this maverick and his razor mind. Many of us have been influenced. The post was a draft modeled on Wikipedia entry on Ben Goldacre, another doctor and author. If you believe it needs improvement to better fit Wikipedia's structure, please advise me on how to make it better. I have not done this before and would welcome your input. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blinman (talk • contribs) 01:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job on the (much-needed) formatting work that you've recently done on 16th century in literature :) --Lini (talk) 12:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply; I am in agreement that it would be good to have more individual year in literature entries from the 16th century. And Merry Christmas to you (if you celebrate Christmas :) or, if you don't, best wishes for a very good day, whatever your day contains! Cheers, Lini (talk) 12:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deb, I'm just writing to inquire about a page deletion. As a follower of the Australian literary family of Ruth Park, D'Arcy Niland, Kilmeny Niland and Rafe Champion, I believed a Wiki page citing the beginning of a third generation member, Tom Champion, would be useful. His soon to-be published book is welcoming an extension into this literary family that has known much fame across Australia and internationally. Would you be able to inform how I can adjust the article to make it more Wik-nificant?

All the best, Laura —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jegeskave (talk • contribs) 02:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand why you deleted my article. Can you please explain and teach me what I need to do in order to keep my article on wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by UriIroniX (talk • contribs) 18:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret of Sicily's content has been duplicated at Margaret of Germany, and the user who did so wants the article at the latter. Does that require a page move, or page merge? Michael Sanders 22:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, do you know what I do for that, then? Michael Sanders 23:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've submitted a move request. Thanks for your help. Michael Sanders 23:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Hi. I've made a bit of a cockup of the move request. I had a tiring day, got home, saw that Michaelsanders had put in the move request, was concerned that he might think I was being unhelpful, and went ahead and moved it without checking because I didn't realise it was controversial. Do you want me to undo what I did, or shall we just carry on with the discussion and move it back later if that's what people want?"

I realise that I haven't yet apologised for that. So, sorry for any trouble I might have caused about that; I was trying to sort the matter out without offending Aldebaran, who'd been acting only in good faith; I probably should have gone about matters in a different way. So, yeah, sorry about that. :( Michael Sanders 20:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to step in and mediate in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)#British and Irish medieval names? It's just deadlocked, and I don't see that the situation will be resolvable unless someone neutral steps in. Michael Sanders 15:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well could you contribute then? Michael Sanders 15:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Michael Sanders 15:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Doctorate is a new scheme designed to recognise the people who "do all the work" on Wikipedia. It has been mainly developed for Wikipedia administrators however if you have done lots to keep Wikipedia on "the straight and narrow", including being members of different groups which help Wikipedia i.e "The Welcoming Committee. We have selected to email you because you can apply for the doctorate and we would be very grateful if you did and put the userbox on your user page to boost advertising. The following link will take you straight to our homepage.

Yours sincerely

--Dr.J.Wright MD (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a mass move request for the Scottish kings preceeding Edgar of Scotland - you expressed some interest in the subject on the UE discussion page, so if you're interested in contributing, see Talk:Kenneth I of Scotland. Michael Sanders 17:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am as mellow as they come these days, you just haven't been paying any attention and can't distinguish good faith honesty and criticism from what you melodramtically style "unnecessarily rude and offensive" comments. Chill out my dear and have some good faith. I've barely said anything of the sort. As for what "this project is about", you'll get a good idea of what I think from my comments, and you would be a better wikipedian if you weren't so easily offended, didn't have such an elevated sense of self-importance and considered for a moment that some people have a different perspective on wikipedia. If you wanna get my respect, instead of claiming expertise on "British monarchy" (whatever relevance that's supposed to have), maybe you should start by making some constructive comments ... something you suggested others should make. John and Sanders at least can be credited with this. And I don't see what you expected to achieve by leaving such a post on by talk page; and I'm lost as to what good would come implying Angus should leave and that all his frustrations stemmed from not having his way. You don't have the foggiest. A vast horde of mediocrity has engulfed Angus of late; such a melting pot of mediocrity, which your philosophy seeks to encourage, can only take wiki articles so far; you'd do much better for the project by thinking beyond such a philosophy and protecting users such as Angus. Cause if they don't get protection, they will, one by one, be forced away. How can that be good? Attack me all you like, that is the way of it. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd get you to say that. It's funny how easily you abandon the ideals you allege to adhere to, including "respect" and "common courtesy", as soon as you encounter disagreement and criticism; though it's not like I've ever seen you put those ideals in action. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]