Misplaced Pages

• I'll chime in with Oliver here, in some ways. Uncle G, you did tell me why I thought it was OR (wikilinks, Harvard), and while you were not (entirely!) correct in your assessment, you got me thinking about things, and you certainly made me look more carefully at the article. A while ago you berated me in some other AfD discussion, and while you were right (as you so often are) I also felt a little, hmm, miffed, and stayed away from discussions where you were involved. All the while, I gladly admit that I have on occasion struck the wrong tone, esp. in AfD discussions, while knowing less about policy (not to mention librarian and academic matters) than you do, so there's not much sense in me calling any kettle black. Anyway, all the best, and see you next time. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

whaddayaknow

I was browsing through the list of DYK candidates and found something that pertains directly to this discussion, in the nominations for articles created on 10 April. Scroll down to the entry for Richmond Bridge, London, and you'll see what I mean--I think you might chuckle. I sure did. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• The part where someone didn't recognize that style of reference? Or the part where it's stated that Harvard referencing is preferred by FA reviewers? Uncle G (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, the first made me laugh a bit, and the second lends credence to your earlier observations. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

redirect on Request for Removal of Copywrite Violation

Incidentally, the extremely swift removal from public access of the "page history" of an article deleted by legal vandalism renders the names of co-authors of those article likewise inaccessible, so that the locating of co-authors in order to apprise them of the fact of their articles having been deleted (so as to alert them of their need to file appeals), becomes impossible without administrative assistance. Would you (or any other administrator to whom you might refer us) be willing to assist us in locating co-authors of deleted articles?71.76.32.220 (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Looking at Special:DeletedContributions/71.76.32.220 I see that you do not have any deleted contributions at all.

  The editor who made that RFD nomination was 0XQ, and unfortunately yes, that editor is violating copyright. One of the articles that xe created was Lumbrokinase. It comprised five paragraphs, each of which was simply copied and pasted from another WWW page. 0XQ did not write anything in that article in xyr own words.

  For example: the fourth paragraph of that article, beginning "Four phases of clinical studies have been done on LK at the Beijing Xuanwu Hospital", was copied and pasted in its entirety from here. That WWW page is, as you can see by reading it, not free content. It even explicitly says, at its foot, "Copyright© 2004-2009 --- NutriCology, Inc. --- All rights reserved.". Copying and pasting it is a copyright violation.

  Creating articles by simply copying other people's writing, is not writing. It's taking other people's writing and passing it off as one's own. It's laziness. And it's not allowed here at Misplaced Pages. We want content that is written in editors' own words. We don't want people to do what 0XQ did. It wasn't writing.

  Two other articles that 0XQ worked upon (but did not create) are Serratiopeptidase and Serrapeptase. But these have not been deleted. One can look in their deletion logs, here and here, to see that. They were merged, because they were the same subject by different names. We have one article per subject here at Wikipiedia.

  Now mergers are not always perfect. Some editors are hasty. Some consider helping with any part of the merger process other than the final redirect to be Somebody Else's Problem. Some are merely starting off a process actually desired by other people, upon whom the responsibility really lies to fully enact what they opine should be done. If there's something in the edit history of one article that has not been merged into the other article, and as long as it wasn't someone else's text that 0XQ was passing off as being xyr own (as xe did with Lumbrokinase) and as long as it is in accordance with our other content policies (in addition to our copyright policy), it can be retrieved from the edit history (which, having not been deleted, is accessible) of the redirected title and added to the merged article (noting in the edit summaries what article it was taken from, for GFDL compliance). All editors have the tools to complete an incomplete merger.

  And there are already discussions at Talk:Serrapeptase and Talk:Serratiopeptidase where editors are open to discussing what further text can be merged, which any editor can join and contribute to. Uncle G (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ysgol Gyfun Garth Olwg

I have had a go at making it more neutral. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC).

• And I've had a go at expanding the description of the dispute, as you've no doubt already noticed. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes good work. Thanks. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I realise you are busy with other stuff on here. But I would really appreciate you putting the page on your watch list to help stop the vandalism and also to speak out if you see it loosing its neutrality in either direction! I hope I will be able to concentrate on expanding a few articles over Easter now. Thanks. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Can you take a look. Someone has undone the great work you did on Ysgol Gyfun Garth Olwg yesterday. Thanks. 86.159.65.72 (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have seen that you have been on the article. I explained to the other editor that you had done some good work and they put your section back and added some more. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

New AfD format and Whitney Lakin

Hi UncleG, I'm unable to figure out how to edit Whitney Lakin as it lacks a link to the AfD on the page for the date. Any ideas? Hobit (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• You can go to Whitney Lakin to edit the page itself. To participate in the AfD, there is a link on the page or you can go to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Whitney Lakin. Bongomatic 01:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. It is still missing a link for "view this AfD" that the other entries have. Hobit (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I fixed it superficially by adding the missing code , but it may be worth examining why it was missing and if anything else is broken. Uncle G, could you have used an old template or something? --Hans Adler (talk) 07:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I generally don't use templates at all for the second and third steps. I pre-date those templates. ☺ There's nothing broken. I simply didn't type in the extra stuff for the magically changing links to and from the per-day page. Uncle G (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

thank you for your reply and suggestions.--Juliaaltagracia (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Gesupur

re: Godwin's Law

Here's the diff: MuZemike 15:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Exothermic welding

Nice work on this one - I had no clue how to fix it, but you have significantly improved it. – ukexpat (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

right--I too was struggling to figure out what to do with this. Thanks DGG (talk)

AfD revisited

• List of words that comprise a single phoneme (AfD discussion)

I read your comment yesterday and found it useful and enlightening, and was waiting to see what the author's response would be. The article has been changed in a meaningful way, and I'm actually rooting for the author--though I'm not fully convinced yet, it won't take much. Thanks for your interest. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No more warnings

I'm through with playing games here. Hilary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LetsPlayHardball (talk • contribs) 07:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well OK, BlueSquadronRaven isn't editing right now so I'm kinda losing my motivation... let's hope he comes back soon to get me all riled up again... —Preceding unsigned comment added by LetsPlayHardball (talk • contribs) 16:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you wonder how BlueRavenSquadron managed to spend so long at Misplaced Pages without realizing the GFDL requires attribution? I think it's this phrase here, from the edit screen which everyone sees:

Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted.

This isn't enough, because it seems to imply that you can simply copy text from anywhere as long as it has a GFDL-compatible license. And this is one reason why Misplaced Pages is an ever-growing mountain of GFDL and other copyright violations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LetsPlayHardball (talk • contribs) 23:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I got my motivation back! and given that Misplaced Pages is an ever-growing mountain of copyright infringement anyhow, I hardly need to feel guilty about vandalising it.

Re: DRV

 Done. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  13:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

Hi Uncle G. Just wanted to say thanks for the follow-up work you've been doing in looking at the contributions of the JamesBurns sock puppets, and looking over the AfD list at User:Paul Erik/Sandbox. I am learning from this experience. Much appreciated, Paul Erik 03:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• I see what you mean, about there being some other very probable sock puppets that had not turned up with the CheckUser. I was wondering, though, what is your reluctance to name them on the investigations page...? Paul Erik 17:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • m:CheckUser policy#Privacy policy (I am not a CheckUser, but I aim to adhere to the same standards. These are not CheckUser data, but they are deleted revisions — and we administrators are entrusted to be careful with what we relay from deleted revisions.) and the fact that my suspicion could turn out to be wrong. Uncle G (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Ah yes, that makes sense. Thanks. Paul Erik 22:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Another question: What distinguishes a discussion that should go to DRV (like Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Papa vs Pretty) from one that should just be re-listed (like Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lac Motion)? Paul Erik 22:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Well actually I took both to MBisanz, first. The latter is almost certainly a re-list. This is because taking the sockpuppets to be one person, there's just the nominator and one other person there. Relisting for further, wider, discussion, by more people, is often the strategy there. The former is more complex. It could be a simple re-list, or there could be enough there as it stands for a safe decision to be made. (By "safe" I mean one that we can have reasonable confidence to have come to the correct result, in accordance with our deletion policy.) Notice that, unlike the case of the other discussion, we have the article's creator addressing the notability criteria, and Phil Bridger pointing out that what is shown isn't enough. My suggestion was Deletion Review, to get more opinions on whether this was a discussion that safely came to the correct conclusion. It's currently in MBisanz's hands. Uncle G (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the clear and cogent explanations, Uncle G. Paul Erik 02:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a question on this topic, if you don't mind: if the participants in the debate haven't read the deletion policy, and don't even read the debate itself (like someone who's name I am not going to mention), is it actually wrong to use sock puppets to argue for the correct result, in accordance with your deletion policy? JustOneMoreQuestion (talk) 07:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Or even against the correct result, just for kicks? JustOneMoreQuestion (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess that would result in an awful lot of work if and when they realized what had been going on. Goesquack (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Uncle G, I see that you've found the "clear connection" I was talking about between Megan1967 and the other socks. When you open the SPI for User:Leanne, I will add any evidence I found that you may have overlooked. DHowell (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Oneirological Advertising

I suppose that is an issue that must be raised about that user's page - though I'm as guilty as anyone else of having joke material on mine. :) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

More sock puppetry

If you look at BlueSquadronRaven's contributions you'll see why there's no point attempting to answer this kind of spam with policy based arguments. There isn't time to google a fraction of these things, let alone trying to build the article. It's not even worth trying to use good puppets which vote the right way because (1) still have to google and (2) you're still outnumbered by Butuirol, Dahn, Bali ultimate etc. The only thing left is bad puppets, hoping to refute the logic they are using and draw in other neutral people to help. Also it keeps the Ricky81682 challenge alive. Mergellus (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the nomination for Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Belarus–United Arab Emirates relations does it not challenge your ability to assume good faith? Mergellus (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You can see that they only win (1) because Misplaced Pages makes decisions by ballot, not discussion, and (2) your ballots are being stuffed by spammers. Wuzzit (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

What's even worse is Ukraine–Vietnam relations. Someone actually expanded that so you have no excuses left. I pledge 10 items of sneaky vandalism for that one, but I'll give you a few days if you want to take it to DRV. Wuzzit (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Michelle Leslie

Thank you for your comments. I agree with your points re BLP's, and completely disagree with your criticism of me for commenting on the discussion without having copyedited the article. People have time for what they have time for, and I didn't (haven't yet?) had time to work on the article itself.

I agree there is a responsibility on all editors (not just administrators) to remove poorly sourced information from BLP's. I also agree there was poorly sourced information in the Michelle Leslie article. Alas, between the time I commented on the AfD and the time you did, I was largely away in real life doing other things. Now I'm back I'm happy to work on this or any other BLP, though I note you've already started work on it. I respect your extensive contributions to Misplaced Pages and would welcome any further suggestions (even criticisms) you might have re editing priorities. But to avoid diverting the AfD I'd suggest they might be better placed either here or at my talk page. If you've other things to do and don't have anything further to add to your earlier comments, thanks again for the feedback. Euryalus (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• It wasn't criticism for not having edited the article. That's not the point that I made at all. It was pointing out that you had let yourself get distracted (a) by the personal attacks (as you did here) and (b) by the deletion nomination onto issues of notability. Yes, the personal attacks were wrong, and an AFD nomination to fix the BLP issues may well be the metaphorical sledgehammer and the metaphorical walnut (especially since the article is listed for attention at the BLP Noticeboard). But we should regard them as distractions from the real issue at hand, which is that the biography is problematic, and should be checked for neutrality and verifiability. Ignore the personal attacks. They are patently wrong, and do nothing but reflect badly upon the person who made them. Although I didn't criticize you for not editing the article, I did strongly urge you to do so. We are the people who are, rightly or wrongly, expected to step in, in these situations. I strongly urge both you and anyone else to take your tools and make that article better, mercilessly. I've done a bit, but I urge others to do more of the same, because I've certainly not completed the task, merely addressed some of the things that jumped right out at me when comparing article content against the sources that it cited. Uncle G (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • OK. Sorry I missed your point. I have a feeling we actually agree and the issue is really one of emphasis. I take your point that people were commenting on the notability of the subject and the personal attacks on the talk page when that time might productively have been spent actually improving the article and fixing/removing unsourced material. I don't necessarily see these other issues as distractions, but recognise there'as a primacy about BLP issues that should have ensured they were also addressed post haste. Thanks for taking the time to reply and I'll bear it in mind in future editing. Euryalus (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Article Deletion Squadron

Hey there! You might be interested in this new venture! The fightback starts here! Yeah! Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet another Thank you!

Big thank you for slicing through the knots I got myself into here.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

AFD closures

Point noted, but I do have a query (see here). Cheers, Nja 12:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyvios by Footage

Wow ... all those articles you cited, Footage is the author and more or less the sole contributor. You think we should G12 the lot, or maybe hit them with {{copyvio}}? I've also proposed a community ban. Blueboy96 20:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I had some time to sleep on it, and I'm pretty sure that these articles are G12able. Care to help me clean up the mess? My mouse finger's getting tired, even with Twinkle. Blueboy96 19:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

--AbsolutDan 21:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Fabulous

This is just lovely. You should do this for all TLDR discussions. :D --Moonriddengirl 13:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you haven't had had had had had had had had had had had enough...

I'm hoping to keep the conversation about this article active and avoid the usual fleeing from a topic that takes place after an AfD has closed. There was much talk about merging this article but little agreement on where to merge it to. Therefore I am informing everyone who participated in the debate of the ongoing conversation here in order to bring this matter to a close sometime in our lifetimes. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• I hadn't forgotten. I'm still in the process of obtaining access to a later edition of Fowlers'. Uncle G (talk) 09:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • It transpires that no local bookshop actually has this in stock. So I'm having to look further afield. Uncle G (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Crystal Palace (talker) (3rd nomination)

I see you've discovered my past life. In my defense, most of what I did was "parodies" or trolls, kooks, and spammers but granted a lot of what I did in that newsgroup would violate WP:POINT here. The only thing left of that era of my net life is the picture on my userpage.

However, I can see where someone reading Usenet archive sources out of context could give someone the wrong idea about something so I would never support using anything like that on an article about a living person. I was just thinking that they could be used to demonstrate verifiability/notability (in the sense that it existed and was well known) for Internet related subjects that predate the world wide web. Again however, in the case of Crystal Palace, I've rethought that, it was created in 1996 and still exists today so if it were notable, then there would be "modern WWW" sources that meet our standards. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Money

Thanks for the long run-down on the issuance of currency that you left at Talk:Licence to print money! I didn't understand that private banks actually are authorized (licensed, chartered, whatever) to print money, but I'm going to look up more information because I still don't understand the nature of arrangement. These banks are authorized to print money ... what, when they feel like it? That seems to make it impossible for a government to exercise any control over its own economy, whether or not the banks are tightly regulated. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for all that info at the "licence to delete" at the AfD discussion (which has gone speedy delete). I did kinda know those facts about British banks but I just knocked up this stub as the Wiktionary article was either incompetent or nonexistent I forget which but I remember grumbling when it got transwiki'd (the licence/license distinction was not properly made, indeed there was an outright spelling error, and the references got lost-- I am amazed anyone kinda grumbled at the BBC being referenced as "A broadcaster" when BBC News must be one of the most referenced sites here).

  Anyway, just a small point I was wondering, what about Scots and Ulster banks who still issue currency? By "The UK" did you mean England and Wales? Of course that's a bit moot in the case of Royal Bank of Scotland which is now public ownership and I don't think they issued banknotes (offers of credit cards seems more their line) but I think e.g. Clydesdale Bank and Bank of Scotland do, and Northern Bank in Ulster (part of HSBC now)? I am probably wrong on remembering the banks here, I am not trying to make a big deal of this except to say it should be checked if that article ever comes about.

  Of course, all banks also issue private money in the form of cheques. Or hmmm is a cheque the writer's private money not the bank's? I've just been editing Negitiable cow so perhaps that has blurred my idea of who owns a cheque, which is, after all, just a promise to pay.

  Which also reminds me someone said to me the other day about banknotes (in England) not being honored cos they were not signed, can't remember if this was about Irish or Scots notes, can't remember the context at all. Again just something probably to check if this article comes about-- and I hope it does cos it would be quite an interesting one I think, in a "who knew?" kind of way. I imagine all these questions are fairly easily answered, just wanted somewhere to make them so they didn't get lost-- I'm not necesssarily expecting you to answer them yourself, except for "Did you REALLY mean UK or just England and Wales"? SimonTrew (talk) 07:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

  • The provisions of the Bank Charter Act of 1844 that prohibited any new note-issuing banks from being established applied to the whole of the U.K.. Scotland and Ireland were exempt from several other provisions of that Act, which applied to England and Wales alone, but were not exempt from that one. (Source: ISBN 9780748607570 page 363) Uncle G (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

ANI Discussion

I understand and empathize your viewpoint that not all ips are vandals. I was never trying to say that only ips are vandals either. I realize that sock puppets can be annoying, but as an editor who constantly fights vandalism, I find that most vandalsim is from anon ips or newly created accounts. Saying that my point of view was "rubbish", especially on an ANI board was not helpful.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• I quite clearly said that your statement, which I directly quoted, was rubbish. Which it is. Observe, for example, that you've stated something quite different here. "an anon ip is more likely to add false information than a logged in user" is not the same as "most vandalsim is from anon ips or newly created accounts". I repeat: Not having an account is not an automatic indicator of bad faith. Uncle G (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • That is unbelievable. You still think that my point of view is rubbish. Very sad. I'm done here.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Please try reading what is actually written. Uncle G (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: request for correction

On Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard (section 21 "request for a correction") you have left this edit, and I would be grateful if you could answer the following (off course, no obligations):

1. I have filed the 3rd round of GFZLab sockpuppet investigation. First 2 resulted in immediate bans, 3rd has no response yet. Were you aware of that application when writing that ? Are you involved in processing that application ? Is it being processed ? Was it appropriate to file that case there, or it belonged to another incident-portal ? How to know whether or not it is being processed ?
2. You mentioned "I recommend that we take the same line here as was taken then, and ban people involved in this external dispute from carrying it into Misplaced Pages". Does it relate to me? If yes, could you please talk about this. On my side, I can assure I will cooperate with wikipedia as much as I can to help resolving this case. I would me more comfortable to discuss this here, if you don't mind, just to avoid direct confrontations with user:Aoganov, and associated negative emotions. Best regards.NIMSoffice (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
   1. Dear Unle G, I can guarantee to you that if I edit Wiki-pages, there will be no puppet accounts, no incorrect information etc. If one edits under real name, there is a great sense of responsibility. On the other hand, I suggest we look closer into the identity of NIMSOffice. This anonymous user clearly has interest in the boron story and misuses his anonymity and editorial privileges. In one recent case it was all too obvious - he reproduced a graph from our paper without giving the source. I contacted NIMSOffice, requesting a change - but to no avail. Another editor made the correction, after a careful investigation concluding that I was right.
   2. You will see that from the start I was editing many pages, not just the boron page. However, it is true that boron story drove me to join WP. NIMSOffice sent me two anonymous emails (signed as NIMSOffice, but from a fake email address) describing the situation with WP. I saw NIMSOffice abusing WP, so I put considerable effort to give proper facts. But this is by far not the only activity that I have on WP (and, conversely, I see lots of other users edit those pages, in many cases restoring my comments after NIMSOffice deletes them). I hope this story will not occupy much of my time after the case is resolved and NIMSOffice's personal interest is proven.
   3. On the other hand, I write under my own name. Any questions can be settled very quickly, and I do my editing openly and straighforwardly.
   4. There is a plenty of other evidence suggesting that NIMSOffice has personal interests in this story, I am happy to provide it on request. I suggested to investigate the identity of NIMSOffice (again, I AM a new guy, and I only hope that I made this request on the right page and in the right form... let me ask you personally to take up this investigation). NIMSOffice stated that he has no connection with the other party involved, namely Dr. Dubrovinskaia and her colleagues. This should be easy to check, once the identity of NIMSOffice is known. It may be Dr. Konstatin Iakoubovskii, who works at NIMS (Japan) and co-authored a paper with N.Dubrovinskaia. This person is also an editor of Sci.Tech.Adv.Mater., where Dubrovinskaia's paper was published just a few weeks after submission (remarkable speed by any publisher's standards), in spite of the referees' rejection. (I do not put this information on public pages, this information is for you, in case you make an investigation into NIMSOffice).

With cordial greetings, Artem R. Oganov Aoganov (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for support. Those personal attacks on myself are becoming annoying. Materialscientist (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC) (NIMSoffice)

1. 1. NIMSOffice, you mention my "personal attacks against you" - but how can I personally attack an anonymous editor? Anonymity and personality are opposite things. Yes, I know your name, but I told you that I have nothing against you personally. I think your actions are indeed wrong, but I have nothing against you personally. Just stop pushing your agenda, and there will be no need for me to show your involvement in this story. Aoganov (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hell, Arizona

That was a great idea, to use the sources to build an entirely new article! Wish I'd thought of doing that. Fences and windows (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• It's not the first time that a hoax has been turned into a real article. I've been doing it since the days of Jamie Kane (AfD discussion) and before. It requires some finesse. It's less common than simply Kerrrzapp!ing a non-hoax article, starting from scratch with sources, as I almost did in these edits to Lunarcrete (AfD discussion), for example, and as I did in these edits to Trinder spot test (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Fizz keeper

attempted outing

saw your related comment on AfD about gamma boron. i warned the user. -Shootbamboo (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

i have since read WP:OUTING. -Shootbamboo (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hell

Just noticed Hell, Arizona... that has to be one of the best article rescues I've ever seen. :) –Juliancolton |  21:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• See above, and below. Uncle G (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC Invitation

Within the past month or so, you appear to have commented on at least one AN/I, RS/N, or BLP/N thread involving the use of the term "Saint Pancake" in the Rachel Corrie article. As of May 24th, 2009, an RfC has been open at Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Request_for_Comments_on_the_inclusion_of_Saint_Pancake for over a week. As editors who have previously commented on at least one aspect of the dispute, your further participation is welcome and encouraged. Jclemens (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• As far as I know, I made no comment on this, but merely did some WikiGnome work on the Administrators' Noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lunarcrete

Impressive HEY job you did on this article. If we could find a way to clone you then we wouldn't need AFD anymore. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you. Clones of me at AFD would not be the most useful thing. All of the holes in the slices of Swiss cheese would line up. Uncle G (talk) 01:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"hints"?

Would you mind explaining your unprecedented (dare I say weird?) habit of putting lines in middle of a discussion? Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• It's not unprecedented at all. It's been a practice in deletion discussions employed by me and others for at least the past five years. Here's a hint on the hints: Why, do you suppose, are they hints? What do you think they could be hinting at? Why do the horizontal rules in, say, Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:I just don't like it and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Managed Security Service Provider mark a clear division between one set of opinions and another set of opinions in the chronologies of those discussions? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I've participated in a number of afd's (if less then you, not by much) and I've yet to come across these lines. It may just be that I've never noticed them. To that end, are you confident that those seeing the lines understand the lines intentions?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure why it would matter if they understood the significance of the lines or not, newcomers to the afd would see the new rendition of the article and those who had previously voted should probably be tracking changes to the article or indeed be involved in making them. A tongue in cheek explanation of the horizontal ruler could be that it is a rap across the knuckles of those that would delete rather than improve. It serves as a potent reminder of what a little editing can do. Unomi (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 18:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 19:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Fly (programming language)

In the interests of not biting a newbie, I've left a message on the creator's page User talk:Flylanguage#Potential Articles for Deletion nomination of your Fly (programming language) article, that will add some urgency to your article tags. If he/she doesn't respond in a reasonable period of time with some sourcing, I may bring the article to AfD, although it will be my first and only AfD nomination in two years of editing. — Becksguy (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The "Cheap, and I'm too lazy to do it right, but you deserve a Barnstar"

" * " ←That's a cheap barnstar ... lol, sorry I'm so lazy and lame. Hey, just wanted to note that you showed leadership by example. The rewrite of Misplaced Pages:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet to take an idea and fix it rather than just delete it is something I admire. Nice work. ;) — Ched :  ?  03:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Really good rewrite. — Becksguy (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Unblock and then topic ban for Aoganov

Please see and comment here. --

Battle of Ambos Nogales

Thank you for the additional information you have provided. When I came upon the article, the single in-line source was a web page that did not exist. I removed no cited info, in fact I added notations asking for citations to be provided. The article author removed all tags in response. The article creator later added an image that they claimed was of US militia who fought in the battle, but following the image link showed that the picture not of who, where, or when the article creator said it was. Needless to say, with some provably false information and 'citations' that led to a non-existant page I was more than a little skeptical of anything in the article.

I found a weblink to the source you mention and found it disagreed with the article in several points, which I corrected, and did not support others, such as the casualty rates, so I added citation tags - which the article creator removed without adding sources.

I did not remove all mention of alleged German involvement, if you read "my" version of the article you would see them mentioned several times. Further, I have not edited the article since I asked for help. Since then the article creator has removed tags asking for citations, again without adding sources. Their claim that Germans were present and fought on the Mexican side is based on a single source. I’ve found another source which does not accept this claim as a certainty, other Gbooks hits don’t have a preview or don’t preview the appropriate pages. Edward321 (talk) 05:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand me...

No no no. Not his archival. I could give a shit how he archives his talk page. Did you read the substance of his discussion? He's being intentionally rude and obstructionary to a simple question. Another user asked for a reasonable explanation of an admin action he made, where he closed some AFDs. Read his response. It wasn't the way he archived his page, it was the rude way he refused to answer the question... Read it. Its a fun time. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Well the archival was the edit that you gave and described. It would have been clearer had you given this different link, instead.

  Yes, it doesn't answer the question. But I think that Docu is trying to make a point subtly, and being too subtle about it. Xe is apparently asking LibStar what type of project xe believes xe is contributing to, and what xe believes it is this project's goal to build. So it's a fair point to observe that neither of the two of them was answering the other's questions.

  Also note that this is not exactly an interaction between these two that has occured in a vacuum. Observe the context, such as this for example.

  Also try putting yourself in Docu's shoes. If someone came to your talk page telling you how non-administrator closures worked, wouldn't you be confused and ask for that person to explain themselves more clearly, or in a different way, with diffs? What if that person's next two posts to your talk page were this notification and this? Would you be any the wiser as to what that person was on about? Given that the latter edit doesn't even ask a question, and nor did most of the edits before it (There's no question asked here, for example.), wouldn't you be yet further confused when that person's next edit was to complain that you weren't answering xyr questions?

  Good communication is not solely Docu's burden here. LibStar's communcation is clearly poor in this circumstance. Given recent edits like this, this, and this, it's not solely this circumstance where it is poor, moreover. Uncle G (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I will concede that neither side comes off looking particularly well in this issue. However, I would expect better behavior out of admins. Look at it this way. Admins should not drag themselves into the mud to wallow with the pigs; he could have taken the high road and simply provided a jusitification for his closure of the articles. Again, if we look at the deeper context, he knew ahead of time that his closures would be controverial, this has been a hot-button subject at Misplaced Pages for some time (the "x-y foreign relations" articles) and he clearly knows the background. Yes, his opponent in this issue was not behaving particularly well, but that does not excuse him here. He knew what the other guy was after, and should have been prepared with an extended explanation given that he should have known that his closures would be viewed as controversial. I had never even heard the name "Docu" before 36 hours ago. At Docu's request: I attempted to mediate a dispute between him and Bali_ultimate over this very issue. The full text of the discussion: is still at my talk page. I tried to mediate the dispute in such a way as to prevent either party from "winning" but which was instead based upon AGF and upon improving the encyclopedia rather than "winning" the debate. When I pointed out that their positions were not actually in conflict, and instead the conflict itself was the problem and was clouding his view, he repeatedly ignored me and repeated the same point over and over. It was like I wasn't saying what he wanted to hear, so he wasn't hearing it. Given that he came to me for help in resolving a conflict, and I made a good faith effort to do so, I found it disheartening that his goal seemed to be proving the other guy "wrong" rather than finding a solution which would work best for all. Look, rather than making excuses for the bad behavior of admins, such as noting that others around them are behaving badly, we should be expecting a higher standard of behavior than the worst of those around us. I can accept that the people he is in conflict with are not behaving well, however I will not use that to give him a "pass" for his own bad behavior here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
    • He knew what the other guy was after — That's the point, though. Did xe? Would you have known, from this on your talk page, that the person wanted you to change "keep" to "no consensus"? Would "my point still stands" have clarified anything, given that you hadn't understood what the point was in the first place? As such, this isn't about giving people passes. It's about not assuming that people, administrators or otherwise, are telepathic, and putting onesself in someone else's shoes.

      As to the discussion on your talk page, note that Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject International relations#Adding {{primarysources}} to various articles, including Estonia–Luxembourg relations is the context and Llywrch is an administrator. Docu wasn't coming to you for mediation. Xe was coming to you asking for suggestions, when an editor repeated behaviour that another administrator had said a week beforehand could be considered disruptive if repeated. You didn't address that, which is why xe returned to the point. You didn't directly say words to the effect of "Look, this edit isn't actually disruption on Bali ultimate's part, contrary to what you are thinking, and the discussion that you point to does not say anything about this article, let alone support the general conclusion about primary sources that you are drawing.".

      Again, look at what you wrote and ask yourself if, were you in Docu's shoes and coming to another administrator to ask a "What action should best be taken with this editor, now?" question, you would know that you, Jayron32, were saying that. Ask yourself whether you might try to re-iterate the point that you were actually asking for help on when the person you asked started talking about notability and "larger issues". Uncle G (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

      • I feel really bad about this. After reviewing the entire situation, I think I probably was too quick to assume bad faith on the part of Docu. Please accept my apology on dragging you into this as well. I can only state, with regard to the conversation on my talk page between myself and Docu and Bali_ultimate that my goal was to diffuse, rather than escalate, the conflict. I did not see the gain in indicting Bali_ultimate when I felt he had not acted in bad faith. However, I also did not see that Docu acted in bad faith here either. My goal was to help both parties, obviously in conflict, to find common ground so that the situation could be diffused. Where I really screwed up was in losing that faith in Docu. After reviewing the situation with fresh eyes, I can see that he has done nothing here which should have caused me to do that. I still believe conflict between the two can be solved, and I would like to do so in a way that does not get anyone blocked or sanctioned or even reprimanded. Again, please accept my apology for involving you in this unneccesarily. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
        • There's no need for an apology. You don't have anything to apologise to me for, as far as I can see. It wasn't actually you who drew me into this, anyway. The people who did, and who do owe an apology, to Docu at the very least, are those who were so unwilling to listen to people who point out that they are wrong that they actually erase them from a discussion. Uncle G (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

"Xe" and "xyr"

How do you pronounce them? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 10:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• wikt:xe#English has some guidance, I see. Uncle G (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I had looked at that entry, but somehow missed that. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 19:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

LoveMonkey diffs

Thanks for doing the leg work on those. As you suspected, I have no involvement in that dispute -- never heard of the guy before a couple of days ago. I don't remember why I commented on LoveMonkey's diff -- it was probably the most recent uncivil one at the point where I dropped in. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Artez

Re: RFC talk

One more issue with the Artez article (which I've readded the COI tag to again). You might also want to mention that the user uploaded the company logo, with the source given as the company's website, and then claimed to be the copyright holder and to release the logo into the public domain. And then added the logo to his/her own userpage, which wouldn't be possible if the logo had been uploaded as fair use. Dekimasuよ! 03:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• You don't need me to mention that. Be bold! ☺ You're right that the user page also needs mentioning. Putting the same content on user pages and articles pretty much simultaneously is another common practice in cases such as these. (Yes, there's a lengthy argument on how exactly to view this, which I'm not going to reiterate here.) Uncle G (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, I probably won't do it myself, though. I don't want to cloud the point of your argument by responding to one small part of it. Just thought it might be worth one more link where you were setting forth the scenarios. I do wish that you had put your comment on the main RfC page for endorsement, though. Dekimasuよ! 03:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

barnstar

I also nominated the article for DYK inclusion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

UncleG probably deserves a few of these per week :) Unomi (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Dobryi

I don't understand why you removed the deletion notice on Dobryi. I think everyone agrees that the article is useless and a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin Trovato (talk • contribs) 2009-06-15 03:46:08 (UTC)

• I explained it in the edit summary. Please read it. Uncle G (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• As explained in the talk section, the article was entered by mistake. I wrongly entered Dobryi as a note in the Dobry,Poland article. Kotniski correctly deleted it and incorrectly made it a separate article. There is no evidence that the place was significant and some doubt as to the accuracy of the source. All info in the article is now in Expansion of Russia 1500-1800. I restored the delete tag. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I've removed it. Go and read that edit summary, as you were asked to. Uncle G (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Sorry, but I still don't understand. If the edit summary is the note that appears on tte hisory page, all it says is that the proposed deletion has been contested. The only 'contest' that I can see are the comments by Kotniski and DGG on the talk page which are requests for expansion rather than contests. What am I missing? Benjamin Trovato (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • This action is contesting Proposed Deletion. Uncle G (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

External ray

Hi. I see that you have : Removed internal link, per Misplaced Pages:Avoid self-references. I have made this because direct link to the page with program was treated as bad page and it was reomed by robot/system ( I do not know). This internal link was an only way to make a link with help find this page via users page. Is it a better way ? Regards --Adam majewski (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• There is no way. All external hyperlinks whose domains end in "sweb.cz." have been globally blacklisted across all Wikimedia Foundation wikis. Blame the people who have put pages up on that WWW site and then used them to attempt to advertise on Misplaced Pages. They've caused so much of a problem that the whole site has had to be blacklisted. The person with the drawing program is, unfortunately, another casualty of that. We don't link from article space to user talk pages, because that doesn't work on mirrors and off-line copies. So, as I said, there is no way to do what you want. Uncle G (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thx for answer. --Adam majewski (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Afd Greenfinger

Seeing as you have taken part in the conversation before I thought you should be notified of Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Greenfinger_(3rd_nomination). The previous decision seems to have been against consensus, which was more for redirect. I personally think the article should be deleted. This is not canvasing as I am informing all people involved in the previous discussions and nobody outside of the discussions. Polargeo (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Gotem

Uncle G, why did you restore three to four year old vandalism to Gotem? It contained nothing that wasn't nonsens, and the current article has very little to do with it, despite starting from the same nonsense: because people then did at first not believe that the info was nonsense, we had to go through an AfD to change it into a completely different, correct article. To restore the deleted nonsense by long gone, mostly blocked editors seems utterly pointless. Fram (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Wrong on all counts. This revision, to pick one of many revisions is not vandalism, nor "a completely different article". It is much the same article. It even presents the same information about the subject: the same latitude, longitude, altitude, and municipality, for example. Far from the restoration being utterly pointless, it is your actions here that have been both pointless and wrong. Indeed, your initial tagging was wrong, too. This revision, which you tagged for speedy deletion, has the same latitude, altitude, and postal code information as the so-called "completely different, correct" article.

  You have not read the edit history, are wheel warring to make an article non-GFDL compliant (The Raven was not the original author of the content.) and are dismissing as "vandalism" and "inaccurate" content that actually was neither, as can be plainly seen when compared to the "accurate" content. Speedily deleting valid content with an incorrect application of the speedy deletion criteria when the conclusion of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gotem was "keep", and when all of your mistakes here were pointed out to you then as well, is highly troublesome, too. I suggest that you undo the both wrong and anti-consensus use of your tools immediately, otherwise it's going to be a lot more than just me quietly fixing an erroneous application of the patent nonsense criterion and restoring GFDL compliancy here. Uncle G (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I have not read the edit history? Uncle G, please... I am the one that showed that all the articles created by these people were stupid vandalism, created by taking fallingrain data (which mixes the reliable with the unreliabe) and adding their own nonsense to it. We achieved to create a decent stub on a tiny hamlet out of this nonsense, that's all. There were in the history only two or three revisions with the correct info, by stripping all vandalism which was later readded. came before your linked version, and directly after it. You then added a wiktionary link to an article about a village, which is rather bizarre (the village and the wiktionary have no connection to one another). The next month, it was vandalized again. At the time I first tagged it for speedy deletion, it had been in its vandalized state again for over eight months. It had been a nonsense article (in part or completely) for its first three months and its last eight months, with 5 months of more acceptable content inbetween. The original author is an IP addres which added the info "Its population is estimated at 39070, although it may increase to 39071 within the week. Alternate names for the city include Kottem and Cotthem. The city of Polfbroekstraat is .6 nm away from it. Gotem is also 24nm west of Brussels. Typically when one enters the city the name is said in salutation. Thus the phrase "GOTEM". Although this may be a bit of an urban legend." IF you feel the urgent need to have this author correctly attributed, be my guest. Stranegly, the article linked here (Polfbroekstraat) was also created by an IP, also edited extensively by The Raven, also tagged for speedy by me, and also then had an AfD. Oh, but there my errors were not seen, as this one was closed as delete.Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Polfbroekstraat. And then there is the article Eiland, crrated by ... user:Gotem, heavily edited by The Raven, tagged for speedy by me, and deleted after Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Eiland. And we also had Kottem and Oordegemsestraat... While you were restoring some valid (althoug unsourced microstubs) versions in the midst of the rubbish, the majority of your restore was nonsense by long-term sneaky vandals. It gives a very strange impression if that is suddenly restored without some good reason. As for wheel-wariing: did you discus your restoration with the deleting admin? Thought so...

    And if you refer the comments by vandals in the AfD over my comments, again, be my guest. But please don't take any comments from people who create and defend the article Eiland at face value.

    Finally, "Speedily deleting valid content with an incorrect application of the speedy deletion criteria when the conclusion of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gotem was "keep", and when all of your mistakes here were pointed out to you then as well, is highly troublesome, too. " suggests that I deleted contents after an AfD closed as "keep". However, I only redeleted contents which was mainly added by serial vandals, was deleted by other admins, without contestation or DRV, and which you decided on your own to restore three years later for no good reason and without consultation of anyone. Fram (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

    • Wrong on yet further counts. My undeletion was a simple history-only undeletion of prior edit history, which had been speedily deleted by an incorrect application of the Misplaced Pages:patent nonsense criterion, for content that was not only not patent nonsense at the time but which had later been kept at an AFD discussion, and which formed the earlier edit history of the article as it currently stands. Such undeletions are uncontroversial. Your deletion was, in contrast, a use of your own administrator tools to continue to enforce your view as nominator in an AFD discussion, against the consensus closure of the discussion, and against the specific statements that you were wrong made by several editors, who most definitely were not vandals (contrary to how you paint them now), pointing out to you that the correct solution to such vandalism is to edit it out not nominate the entire article for deletion (you were told this, twice), and that the information in the deleted content was identical to the information in the current content (you were told this). Yet another count on which you are wrong is your notion of what my edits to the article were. What I in fact did was subtract dictionary article content from an article on a village, substituting a pointer to the dictionary for those who might want it, not add it. Uncle G (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • You removed nonsense from the article and added a wiktionary pointer to a completely unrelated article, to please vandals. You have now restored this bizarre edit. Impressive. It was pointed out to me that the "nonsense" tag was incorrect by the same admin who restored Eiland, a blatant hoax. Furthermore, it is not because an article can be written about a title that we keep an article which is mostly vandalistic nonsense. The content that was "kept" is not the same as the content that was previously deleted for the vast majority of the edits (35 out of 40) and the time. I did not enforce my view by redeleting this content: if I had wanted to enforce my view, I would have deleted the article. I have improved and maintained this article during the past three years since the AfD. You didn't. Finally, if you think I should listen to malinformed edits like the one you linked, then you can wait for a lot longer. There are no "two cities of the name of Gotem", there is one tiny hamlet. When this edit comes in a sock- and meatpuppet riddled AfD (and series of articles) from an editor with only four very minor edits at the time, and a copyvio article creation, after a gap of several months (i.e. out of the blue), then I'm even less likely to listen to it. Similarly, CrzRussian had shown here that he was seriously malinformed, blindly believing fallingrain. That you are now continuing the job of the vandals is clearly beyond me, and I still haven't gotten a clue what is achieved by restoring this content. Oh yeah, right, the original IP vandal is now GFDL compliant known to all... Fram (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • The content that was "kept" is not the same as the content that was previously deleted — Another count on which you are wrong. It was the same, right back to the first version of the article in fact. Several of the facts in the first edit remained in the article all along and are in it even now. if you think I should listen to malinformed edits like the one you linked — Yes, you very much should have listened to the several people who told you that vandalism can be edited out without deleting the entire article, or even without nominating the article for deletion at all (which you did four times), as you should listen to people who tell you now that the deletion tool is not the answer to vandalism.

        I still haven't gotten a clue — Indeed. Here is some more Clue then: You nominated an article for deletion multiple times when you could have just fixed it. You didn't actually constructively edit the article at all, as none of your edits have introduced any content. And you are still, after three years, fixated with the idea that the people who wrote that Gotem was, for examples, at latitude 50 and a bit degrees north and has postal code 3840 are vandals. Indeed you are still, here and now in the very edit above, accusing the original creator of the article, who introduced those self-same facts to Misplaced Pages, of being a vandal. Uncle G (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Congratulations, you have now 35 vandalized edits again visible, and one constructive editor pissed off. Keep up the good work. Fram (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Your actions here with this article were not "constructive editing". They were inappropriate reactions to vandalism, including two mis-uses of the Misplaced Pages:patent nonsense criterion and even misuse of your own administrator tools, which could be, and eventually was (by other editors) fixed in the way that Crzrussian, Zoe, and ScottW all told you it could be fixed three years ago. Uncle G (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Dream on, Uncle G. Could you explain which "misuse of my administrative tools" was "eventually fixed" by other editors? My first use of admin tools on this article was today, after you decided on your own that when an article has finally been turned from a vandal-magnet into a decent stub and then kept, all previous vandalism should be restored as well. Never mind that I have repeatedly removed vandalism from the article since, while you haven't... As said above, CRZrussian didn't have a clue what he was talking about in this article, and "improved" a seriously incorrect version. Thanks for restoring his mistakes again, it really helps this project. Contrary to my misuse of administrative tools at a time that I didn't even was an administrator, this is stellar work. I'll just drop out of your ivory tower now and rejoin the normal world. Fram (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Read what is written properly, paying attention the commas. I said that the vandalism could be fixed in the way that you were told it could be fixed. And indeed it was — just as Crzrussian, who very much did have clue here as to what tool was what, told you. I'm going to assume that your apparent belief that your speedy deletion nominations were your mis-use of administrator tools is simply deliberate misunderstanding, since it was only some 13 hours ago when your actual mis-use of administrator tools occurred. Uncle G (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's see. The original editor, probably user PhoenixPinion (who also edited e.g. the soon deleted vandal article Caughtem minutes after creation (Gotem and Caughtem, right...) In his first edit, he introduces a wrong province, a totally wrong population (39,000 instead of 200), imaginary alternative names, and most damningly, a link to a hoax article created by the same group of vandals (Syphonbyte, The Raven, The Raven is God, 578, PhoenixPinion, Catbag, ...) Oh, and some unrelated nonsense slang, the very reason they created and maintained this article. The second edit, by the very same creator, adds "See "Caughtem" for further information.", which as indicated above is also a deleted hoax article. Yes, these are all indications that this was a well meaning editor and not a vandal... We obviously will not understand each other here. Oh, and you have not read the entire edit history (to use one of your complaints), since I did introduce content, here. Fram (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Random question of little importance

In Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bavarian Pigeon Corps, instead of "he", several times you have typed "xe" and at one point I think you typed "xem" instead of "them". It was very confusing at first, although it was nearly four in the morning and I was not my most focused. I was just wondering what was up with that.

Nevermind. Just saw User_talk:Uncle_G#.22Xe.22_and_.22xyr.22. Never heard of that before. لennavecia 15:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

On the wisdom of compromise

You want to say something to me, say it to me. Speaking of "the easy way", you could probably check my contributions to see how it is that I edit. I happen to agree with you that IPC stuff isn't really useful. However, since so many users create those sections, especially in certain cases, I'm not sure it's always the best to get rid of it. Mintrick (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have said it to you, three times now. I even put your name right there in the sentences. It couldn't have been clearer that I was addressing you. If you think that it's not the best idea to get rid of such content, then don't get rid of it as you have been. You've been sweeping bad content under the rug. It doesn't work. It never has worked. We've had numerous AFD discussions over the years where people have forked like this, and they have pretty much all resulted in either deletion, redirects, or re-merger to the source articles, for the cycle to begin anew. Lather, rinse, repeat. Learn from past experience, both yours and that of the many before you, and from what does work. Uncle G (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • What I meant is that you'd probably have better luck starting a direct dialogue, as I have.

    I've been watching the results of the AfDs that have gone so far, and I'm not displeased. If the material must be deleted, then it is much easier to do that by AfDing an IPC article than obliterating an IPC section.

    As an aside, if you truly believe that such trivia has no place in Misplaced Pages, then you should try and get policy to say that. Because right now it doesn't. Mintrick (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    • You believe that. You are the one creating these articles in order to sweep this content under the rug. It's thus you who has the interest in pushing for a policy change. I have an interest in good articles, which includes good articles about popular culture if good sources exist appropriately covering the subjects. (I speak as a major author of the current versions of Portrayals of Mormons in popular media, Portrayals of God in popular media, Pon farr, The Galaxy Being, LOL, elephant joke, and many others.) This is done by replacing bad cargo-cult-written content with "brilliant prose", improving articles that convey little to no knowledge with content that conveys comparatively more knowledge. Policy has supported that pretty much ab initio. It's what we do around here. See Misplaced Pages:Editing policy and Misplaced Pages:Article development. And the results work.

      As for " is much easier to do that by AfDing an IPC article than obliterating an IPC section.": That's exactly the sort of burden-shifting and work-multiplication that earns an editor the disrespect of everyone else. It's imposing unnecessarily a burden on many editors (Look how many editors have participated in the AFD discussions that you have caused.) that need not exist. And it's wrong, too. The AFD discussion results, especially merge results, often don't provide any support for removing the original content from the original article, contrary to what you are thinking. Ordinary editing of an article in situ, discussing sourcing and original research issues on the talk page in the normal way, can deal with bad content, without sweeping things under the rug and without causing massive amounts of work for everyone else wholly unnecessarily. Uncle G (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The Fightin' Ea... errr... Pigeons

It would appear that the BPC issue is moving to a resolution. The good thing is that the new emphasis will be on the inventor and the invention rather than a peripheral (at best) army unit. Funnily enough my grandfather was both a pigeon fancier and a member of the German army and from 1916 the air corps during WW1. I am sure that he would have mentioned the phenomena of birds with cameras had there been such. Albatross2147 (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Five wits

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Carina Axelsson (2nd nomination)

I think you forgot to actually say keep at that Afd. DGG (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• I haven't looked fully at the other sources. While you're here, though, please contribute to #Dobryi. Uncle G (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Scotland rules returns ...

... now with the date of Bannockburn in his name, Meechan1314 (talk · contribs). Dearie me, what a headache. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion regarding the misuse of the prod tag.

Hi, you may want to add your comments User_talk:Unomi#RE:_Regarding_your_use_of_the_prod_tag here, as I am not quite sure how well I am handling it Unomi (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A curse on your house for getting me involved with him. Unomi (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki namespace?

Your bot created Transwiki:Politics of Merrimack and Transwiki:Politics of Merrimack/Merrimack Politics of 2002. I'd never heard of the Transwiki namespace before -- am I completely out of the loop? If so, could you point me to where I can learn about it? If not, could you move those articles to where ever it is you intended them to go? Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• It started, years ago, as a pseudo-namespace. On some wikis, including the English Misplaced Pages, it remains so today. (As can be seen from Misplaced Pages:Transwiki log/Articles moved to here, we don't have much transwikification traffic to Misplaced Pages.) On other wikis it is now a true namespace. (On the English Wiktionary, for example, it is namespace #108.)

  As to what is intended: You're asking the wrong person. Go and ask the people commenting at b:Project:Votes for deletion#Politics of Merrimack what they intended. They are the ones who wanted the transwikification. Feel free to encourage them into putting their edits where their discussion words are. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

  • After reading carefully the comments at b:Project:Votes for deletion#Politics of Merrimack, it certainly doesn't seem they were intended for a pseudo-namespace here. I've WP:BOLDly moved them. Cheers!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    • The "Transwiki:" namespace is where all incoming transwikifications first go. It's the convention, as can be seen from the incoming logs, here and on the other WMF wikis. Uncle G (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
      • But as there aren't any other articles in that namespace, there must be a procedure for getting them into article namespace. m:Help:Transwiki is vague on that (and rightly so). So it seems that what I was really asking in my first question is where I needed to go to learn about that. Because of improvements in how the dead end page list is generated, I'll be seeing these more often, and I'd like to learn about how to deal with them.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

watchlist

Hello Uncle G. I've gone ahead and added both the Harrison Ford and Jeff Goldblum articles to my watchlist per your suggestion at the ANI (Jackson) thread. I was curious though - are the items related in some fashion? I just wasn't sure why Ford and Goldblum would be targeted. thanks. — Ched :  ?  13:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• See the Wikinews link that I put right next to that. Uncle G (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD opnion

An AfD I tried to rescue was deleted without relisting despite a 4(including nom, excluding a double vote)-3 vote. I believe I provided sufficient sources to prove notability, but the closing admin didn't seem to think so, per the closing note. Since I've seen you walk by on quite a few AfDs, I'm seeking your opinion on whether this might be something to take to deletion review. If someone other than me doesn't think so, I don't see the point in wasting everyone's time at DR, and I've never heard of this subject before the AfD and probably won't ever again, so it's not that important to me, except for the manner in which this AfD was worked. Can you check Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/FACT Software International Pte Ltd and let me know what you think? -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

TMZ

Hiya Uncle G. While I agree that, in a void, the thread in question would be more appropriate on the RS board, it is also relevant to the ongoing MJ discussion. If the thread had been started independantly of anything else, I'd agree with the move. As it stands, I think we might all be better served by collapsing the thread, and possibly doing some form of transclusionary magic to have the ongoing thread shown in both places. Badger Drink (talk) 08:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• No. The best move was to move directly to the appropriate noticeboard, as was done. Not only is it where editors who deal in the reliability of sources (rather than in incidents warranting administrator attention) hang out. But as you can see from how things stand now, the discussion will remain open for a reasonable length of time, rather than be rapidly archived. Uncle G (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Templates

Hi Uncle G, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't turn regular refs into citation templates, as they make the text harder to edit. See WP:CITE, regarding changing styles. Cheers, SlimVirgin 03:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'd appreciate it if you took your own advice and left my citations as I originally wrote them, and didn't change their styles. Uncle G (talk) 03:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:CITE says that once a citation style is established in the article, editors shouldn't change them. In cases of dispute, defer to the style used by the first major contributor, as with other style issues where there are no firm rules. Please just let the article be written without adding to problems with templates etc. We need to get the content in place. SlimVirgin 05:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Come now! You know better than this, or should at any rate. I once again point out that I was the one who contributed the content in this case. Uncle G (talk) 06:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it appears from context that the admonitions in WP:CITE refer to changing the overall format (i.e., Harvard style versus general versus footnote) or the display style of a particular format, and not the use or non-use of templates to achieve the same display format:

• "Citations are usually presented within articles using one of the methods described in the How to present citations section of this guideline. Each article should use the same method throughout—if an article already has some citations, an editor should adopt the method already in use or seek consensus before changing it."

Specifically refers to general, footnote, etc., not whether templated or not.

• "Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus."

Ambiguous—while it says "templates can be contentious", it is clear that the reason is the resulting display format, not the ease of editing.

• "Once a style is selected for an article it is inappropriate to change an article to another unless there is a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style."

Again, specifically refers to general, footnote, etc., not whether templated or not.

The article that seems to be in dispute doesn't have a distinct citation style different from that achieved with the templates, so the issue here seems to be moot. Bongomatic 07:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:2009 flu pandemic

We need more people to help sort this out. Accusations of POV and false sources are knocking about.--86.25.8.152 (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Users JamesBurns, MegX, et. al.

I suspect user User:JamesBurns, AKA User:MegX, has returned as User:Trevvvy and probably User:Cradleofrock. Please see my comments here User talk:Aervanath#Another sock of User:Piriczki for a detailed account of my suspicions. Piriczki (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

IB Diploma Programme

Thanks for slogging through the mud. Sorry for getting lost in the mud. Won't happen again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I still would like ObserverNY's repeated insinuations about me and the attempted "outing" (based on her thinking I am someone she knows - see her talk page) to be addressed. Thank you.Tvor65 (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Don't pick at the scab. Let the issue lie. Uncle G (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, the conversation has moved here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: My lack of focus

I wholeheartedly conur. I knew shortly afterwards that I had lost it at this point and did try to get back on track. I have learned from this. Thank you for your patience, time and effort. --Candy (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Request opinion for archives on IB DP

Hi Uncle G. I've been archiving the Talk:IB Diploma Programme page on a frequent basis, but having never archived before, don't know whether I've done it correctly. In your opinion, is it best to continue with the cut/paste archiving method I've used (which preserves the history) or is there a more efficient manner to archive. I ask because the page is very long and needs archiving again. Thanks for your help. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

FIITJEE AfD

You might want to see that your edits have been reverted for reformatting another editor's post, apparently. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, Phil Bridger undid the revert, and it looks like it's all a big happy family once again. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Gerarchia

Thanks for getting in first so I didn't have to do the work. I sometimes feel that I'm ploughing a rather lonely furrow here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Mess about C-41 and SISPRE and other

Hi, I found your message and I have changed the information in the C-41 and SISPRE. You were right. I found same mistakes and duplication in the items.

About the item "Center for Studies and Research on Aeronautical Medicine" I recognize that i made a duplicate but i'm not able to delete it.

Please can you tell me the procedure to delete the item?

About Gaetano Arturo Crocco, Salto di Quirra and Mario Pezzi, i don't understand which is the problem, because i have inserted same information in the prewious item

Thanks

marto (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Just letting you know...

...that my reply here was meant in good faith. I didn't realize the next person to comment would have a sarcastic attitude towards you. So I hope you don't interpret my comment in the same manner. :-) Cheers. APK coffee talk 19:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't. Your response was by far the better. You're clearly willing to change your mind if evidence is presented, and you acknowledge that there's one first step taken along that road; even if the journey is not fully travelled, yet. That's an admirable attitude. It's also admirable that you looked for sources yourself, and said so in the nomination. Uncle G (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to drop a thank you for your help, research, work, and explanations in regards to the DRV and Wictionary. It's greatly appreciated. ;) Best, — Ched :  ?  03:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

FA citations

I'm placing this here to avoid derailing the discussion on the Gropecunt Lane article talk page.

Using my example of citation #32 at Restoration of the Everglades, which appears now as: Davis, Steven. "Phosphorus Inputs and Vegetation Sensitivity in the Everglades" in Everglades: The Ecosystem and its Restoration, Steven Davis and John Ogden, eds. (1994), St. Lucie Press. ISBN 0963403028

It could also appear as a book cite, shortly reading <Davis and Ogden, p. XX> and a listing of the book in the Bibliography section. In fact, that might be clearer, because it gives the precise page number where the claim is cited. I did this when I constructed Rosewood massacre using a history book edited by Michael Gannon. Cite #10 in Rosewood massacre refers to a page in a chapter written by William Rogers, but it is cited to Gannon, and the book is listed in the Bibliography section as Gannon (ed.). Both are correct and accepted in FAs; it is the preference of the FA nominator/author to decide how these citations appear.

I was not trying to fault the cite template, but you mentioned the cite encyclopedia template, though I had not referred to encyclopedias. I just refuse to use cite templates for the reasons I gave. Parrot of Doom changed it. That's his decision. He was not wrong in how he cited it or the fact that he changed it. --Moni3 (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• None of that is actually relevant to either what was being discussed or the arguments that you actually made, which were, I remind you, that getting the author wrong in a citation was either a matter of "individual preference" or magically the fault of citation templates. Moreover you did talk about encyclopaedias. You stepped into the middle of a discussion of a citation that was, very clearly, about a citation of an encyclopaedia (The name of the book was a dead giveaway.) and you wrote "To use a chapter or entry written by one contributor it would have to be cited as a journal entry". To which the response is quite clearly that no, it can be cited in the everyday way that we cite encyclopaedias, for which we even have a handy template. And yes, you very clearly wrote "entry", as in encyclopaedia entry.

  A citation listed the wrong person as the author. It was wrong. You've tried to blame the citation templates, which have no bearing upon errors of fact. You've tried to argue that a simple error of fact is a matter of "individual preference". You're now pointing to citations where you've omitted the name of the author as somehow being relevant. I have to ask: Are you intentionally missing a very simple and clear point? Uncle G (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Well, it's not wrong. Entries have to do with almanacs, biographies, and general reference books, not just encyclopedias. But, alas, I thought I might be doing a service by clarifying what the FA standards are for citations. If you must believe it is wrong, than bully for you. However, the rest of the editors who frequent and check articles nominated for FA will continue to believe otherwise. --Moni3 (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • You aren't doing any form of service, because you don't actually represent FA standards here. You certainly don't represent the ones written down. The only thing that you are clarifying, by trying all of these tacks to defend the clearly indefensible, is the existence of a fault with what you are doing at FA, which as I said before I strongly suggest that you rectify. Naming person A as the author of something when person B is actually the author is clearly and unambiguously wrong. It's a form of citation error that researchers study, for heavens' sakes! I suspect that you don't have the support amongst FA reviewers for your outright denial of that, that you think. Uncle G (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Okeydoke. Enjoy your afternoon. --Moni3 (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

User:67.40.131.21

Actually, s/he triggered it 10 times--check out the filter log. Blueboy96 11:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• … by making one edit. I point out, a second time, that the contributions history has exactly three edits, only one of which is tagged by a filter. So, again, how is this "repeatedly"? Uncle G (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmmm ... I'm reading the filter log as showing that IP tried to make 10 edits to the same article, and the filter disallowed it each time before it was able to make an edit that the filter would allow. Blueboy96 13:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    • So you blocked an editor for doing the right thing — changing an edit to stop it from doing the things that the edit filter was warning about — and for making just one edit in total. Also note that the warning message that the editor probably saw several times was for test edits, and said nothing about changing the edit, merely "If you're sure you still want to make this edit, go to the bottom of this page and click 'Save page' again". So you're also blocking an editor for being sure that xe wasn't making a test edit. Filter logs such as these should always be read carefully. Uncle G (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work

Thank you for your excellent work on Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. . I hesitate to change the class=C ranking, but is a puzzle to me how it could be class=C and nominated for GA status. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply

I don't know how often you check Commons so I'm dropping a line here too: I've replied there. And yeah, what DThomsen8 said about the improvements to Bridgeman v. Corel and related articles.--ragesoss (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

See my talk page on Commons; I can't find anything, one way or the other, about the file we have, although several other photographs that are definitely not free were deleted with that file name before the current one went up.--ragesoss (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the license tags and put the no-license tag on it; it'll get deleted after 7 days if no one can find licensing info. More details about the context at my Commons talk page.--ragesoss (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

GameScoop

I would like to know why you deprodded GameScoop. You didn't explain why in the edit summary nor on the talk page. If there was something that I had missed when I tried to look for sources, let me know. Thank you, MuZemike 06:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• The edit summary had a quite clear explanation, as indeed did the edit summaries before mine. Uncle G (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, now I see. It was already prodded. Apologies for my lack of hindsight, MuZemike 14:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • No worries. That's why I aim to give the date of the original contest when I remove notices in such situations. Uncle G (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

IB article

Hi Uncle G. I respectfully request that you drop in on the International Baccalaureate article. The pro-IB contingency is warring with me over my use of Phyllis Schlafly's article as a source to substantiate controversy over the program in the United States. These are two of the same editors from the IBDP article I have had problems with. I am trying to abide by Wiki policies, be polite, and constructive, but EVERYTHING I add becomes a target and gets wiped or moved around. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

• I'm quite busy at the moment, because of the incidents of last Friday. I'll try to swing by as soon as possible. Don't lose heart or get provoked into doing something silly in the meantime. Uncle G (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• I realise you're busy and shouldn't be bothered at this time. I'd like to revert my edits. I changed the article that looked like this to this. When you have time please advise re: 3rs on oneself. If ObserverNY is upset with the edits I don't mind changing. But I do mind, to some extent, pov pushing, and shabby use of sources. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Two very quick points off the top of my head, then: First, I suggest that you say to ObserverNY, if you haven't done so already, that you're happy to find another approach that addresses any substantive objections, and to work towards that. Second, I suggest that you keep away from impunging ObserverNY's motives, as you just did. (This goes for you in the opposite direction, too, ObserverNY.) I suggest that you both try what is known as "writing for the enemy". Try to find good sources for information, and to add such well-sourced information to the article, that is counter to your personal opinions of the subject. Both of you. I'd offer more specific advice on this point, but I haven't reviewed the substance of the content that you are disputing yet. And don't be shy of hashing things out at length on talk pages. We're not going to run out of not-paper for them. Just remember to not upset each other and to stick to discussions of the content and of the sources, not of editors. Uncle G (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Uncle G. I just want to advise you that Tvor65 has now found their way to the IB article with the same apparent attack mode that was on display in the IBDP. It is very frustrating. I don't want to violate any Wiki policies but this person is not editing in good faith. Editors like Truthkeeper add value to an article because of their familiarity with Wiki policies, format, etc. Tvor65 has one purpose and one purpose only from the history of both articles, that is to delete and alter any references I place in an article. Thank you.ObserverNY (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Actually, I have not been editing for a while, and just made a few edits today replacing several non-neutral sources that ObserverNY has cited. Other editors agreed with this assessment of the sources, by the way. I explained each edit I made both in the edit history and in the talk page. I certainly did not alter or delete the vast majority of ObserverNY's edits; nor is it my goal. The only "purpose" I have is for Misplaced Pages to present things in a non-biased manner.Tvor65 (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm?

I've re-read the IB page from here. You told me to apologize. I did. I considered two comments to be in bad form and I struck them. Not being a person known for using sarcasm, I don't see which of my comments you consider sarcastic. At any rate, I'll step away. I'm copyediting an article for someone else for FA status, and then I can step away from Misplaced Pages entirely. Thank you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• No, it was La mome who was sarcastic, not you. Perhaps that should have been clearer. And no, I didn't tell you to apologize. I told you to tell others what you said here on my talk page, that you were actually willing to work on alternatives, because that might not have been understood and it looked it like wasn't understood. Sometimes it's necessary to say such things explicitly. You and the others certainly appear to have been working together with far less friction than before. I don't see why you think that you need to step away, to be honest. Have a read of this edit. You're not actually as opposed as you appear to think you are. As I said to ObserverNY, don't lose heart. Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

In my view, this is good advice. That's why I'd step away; and because there's much to do on Misplaced Pages in general where one can work quietly. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Fair enough. But I reiterate that I think that you actually are not in as much of a conflict as you think yourself to be. You appear to be in rough agreement as to the goal, and working together towards it. Also look at what you've actually achieved, and compare it to what was achieved in the preceding four years. Uncle G (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to bother you but LaMome has had a, well, I'm not quite sure what you would call it, but it is obviously in response to her remarks being called sarcastic and now she has copied and pasted stuff from editor talk pages onto the IB talk page. Of course it is all about me, I did not respond, but it has been there overnight and it's not pretty. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

It is not pretty because it exposes ObserverNY for what s/he is. It also sheds light on the reason for my sarcasm. I agree that there is a lot more content on the page than there was in the versions you supplied. But the road to get there was painful. In just one month there has been 2 attempted outings, a 24 hour block due to 3RR, relentless pushing of POV, edit warring, FLAMING and constant additions of sources that are clearly not valid or verifiable. All by ObserverNY. And I get chastised for sarcasm. I am sure this is tame compared to other pages, but the drama on the IB pages is unpleasant enough to make people want to walk away (Ewen, Candy and now Truthkeeper). You will be left with an article that will resemble the anti-IB website "Truth about IB" created by ObserverNY.

Thank you for your words of wisdom and encouragement. I am sorry that your time is being wasted with all this pettiness.

La mome (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

LaMome and Tvor65 have tag teamed me from the day I started the IBDP article and have continued their assault in the IB article. They have both admitted somewhere in the talk pages to being aware of my postings elsewhere on the Internet. LaMome has admitted to being an IB teacher. The 24 hr. block was due to LaMome reporting me after Tvor65 deleted my edits without explanation and I reverted them. I do not believe the talk page of an article is appropriate for these sort of hysterics and respectfully request that Uncle G. intervene. These constant accusations of flaming and outing are ridiculous. If LaMome and Tvor65 would simply make contributions to the article in good faith instead of attacking everything I do, the world would be a better place. ObserverNY (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Well, first of all, everyone who googles "ObserverNY" (or goes to her website that she is trying to advertise on Misplaced Pages) is aware of her postings elsewhere on the internet. Second, my edits were explained (unlike many of the ones ONY made). Third, ONY goes into the tantrum mode every time her edits are challenged, so it is more than a little ironic that she would be the one complaining about "hysterics". Fourth, the two "outing" attempts are well documented. In general, ONY's behavior created a situation when editors prefer to work on other articles rather than participate in endless and rather unpleasant arguments with ONY. This helps her achieve her stated goal and will hardly lead to a balanced Misplaced Pages article about IB.Tvor65 (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Uncle G - I have completed the section on IB Governance to the best of my ability. I resent the above allegations made by LaMome that I have caused Ewen, Candorwein and Truthkeeper to "walk away". Ewen and I are "friends" on Facebook, Candorwein stated he/she would be on vacation for 6 weeks (I never did get an apology for his/her "sexist" remark, but it's water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned) and Truthkeeper, well, he/she was upset with you, Uncle G. I left words of encouragement for Truthkeeper to please stay on his/her talk page. I ask you to judge for yourself if my additions to the article are biased. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I think Uncle G has either gone AWOL or had himself committed after this back and forth. I propose a WP:Truce with LaMOme and Tvor65. The ball is in their court. ObserverNY (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I've accepted the truce. La mome (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you LaMome. Peace. ObserverNY (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Fine with me, too (not that there was/is any war going on).Tvor65 (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, you cannot be part of the solution if you fail to recognize the problem, just as you can't agree to help put out a fire - if you don't see the fire. I'm afraid I cannot shake on a WP:Truce with Tvor65 based on the above caveat. ObserverNY (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I am resigned to the fact that Tvor65 will continue to bully until she gets her way and so, I have bowed out of the International Baccalaureate article. The 3rd Opinion editor has recreated the article in what appears to be a reasonable and balanced fashion, although it lacks much of the detail I had contributed due to my choice to remove myself and my contributions from the page. I am disappointed that as an administrator you have gone "off grid", but you are entitled to free time as much as anyone. For the future, please be advised that I consider Tvor65 a POV combatant despite her disingenuous claims of neutrality and consider her presence on ANY article a hindrance to constructive improvement. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I think anyone who reads the recent discussions can see just who exactly wanted "to bully until she gets her way" and when that failed wiped out half of the article that she deemed as "her contributions". Thankfully, another editor restored and reorganized the article, which now looks a lot more balanced and better written, in my opinion. As for the accusations, again, I am confident that people can see my contributions and judge for themselves, rather than rely on ONY's baseless claims.Tvor65 (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Astounding, truly. You actually believe you've made "contributions" to the article? I just went through the history from the time you arrived. I came across one you tagged "corrected grammar". Okay, I figured that would be a "positive" contribution but when I checked it, I found it had nothing to do with corrected grammar and that you had actually changed an article citation I had placed. Your only other article "contributions" consisted of removing the DeWeese citation, attempting to use the Bunnell citation while feigning ignorance that an IB teacher was the source, and then moving the Programmes section back up when everyone else agreed to wait for WT:EDUCATION. The record DOES speak clearly and my claims are clearly documented. ObserverNY (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I suggest that ONY stops using Uncle G's talk page as a platform for personal attacks against me. Accusing another editor of "feigning ignorance" is beyond the pale.Tvor65 (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

On the Stewart Downing photo issue

Your comments at WP:ANI regarding the Stewart Downing photo are a bit obtuse. Could you perhaps detail the issue in the talk page comment you want everyone to "get". Because I certainly don't see what you are talking about. Just telling us all to "read the comment" as though we can magically devine what your opinion on the comment is isn't helping much. I too want to resolve this issue, and you seem to indicate that there is something in the comment that will help us resolve it. If you could direct us to what it is, that would be most awesome. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 17:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

reference style

On the Chan Heung page you mentioned that the reference style is not well done. Can you give me a more concrete example? I can provide a better reference style if an example is given. Thanks for your input! I do appreciate having input if it will help make the page better. Huo Xin (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Blue Pig

• Richard Croft deserves some of the credit for taking photographs. Uncle G (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Blue Pig

Hi Uncle G. The article you turned Blue Pig into is an interesting idea, and I have created a redirect to point to it - Blue Pig, Grantham. However, it is inappropriate for Blue Pig to point to an article on Grantham, as there are several pubs with the name Blue Pig, and the one in Grantham is not particularly more notable than the others: Google, Books, therefore a redirect of Blue Pig to an article on pub names seems more appropriate. Unless you have a continuing objection, I'll point Blue Pig back to Pub names. There may, of course, be other solutions to consider - and people may in future do other things with Blue Pig! Anyway - as it seems you have an interest in pubs, would you consider helping out on the pubs articles at WP:Pubs? SilkTork * 21:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It's each to their own, but your talkpage is difficult to navigate as it is so long. Be helpful to other users if you archived it.

And I note that you dislike disjointed conversations. I'm the same. What I tend to do is copy what has been written and paste it onto the other person's talkpage along with my response - that way they are informed of my response by the Misplaced Pages talkpage software, and the conversation is all kept together. Regards SilkTork * 21:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I think that you'll not find anything to write about Blue Pigs in general. This is based upon how sources treat the subject. I've done more than your Google searches. I've actually read sources. The entry for "Blue Pig" in Rothwell (cited in public houses and inns in Grantham) directs to the entry for "Blue", and the entry for "Blue" doesn't say much about Blue Pigs specifically, and spends over a third of its length talking about the "Blue" pubs in Grantham. The Guinness Book of names doesn't even have an entry for "Blue Pig" at all.

Your Google searches — as Google searches do, and as explained by Misplaced Pages:Google test — mean nothing when it comes to notability, and are a completely fallacious argument. The actual coverage by sources, which I've seen because (for obvious reasons ☺) I've spent some time looking for and reading sources that document a Blue Pig pub, is skewed towards Grantham. Simply put, most coverage is Yellow Pages content, self-advertising, and things like when the pub quiz night is, which has nothing encylopaedic to say. Where the coverage is suitable source material, it covers the Blue Pig only as part of a larger discussion of "Blue" pubs in general, which in turn tends to devote a large part of its time to Grantham's "Blue" pubs. The Blue Pig is only documented as part of a notable umbrella subject, and isn't notable in its own right.

I did point this out in the AFD discussion. Did you think that I hadn't based what I wrote on what coverage in sources I had found? If I'd found sources documenting the subject in its own right, I wouldn't have had to rename the article. Indeed, if such coverage in sources existed the original article wouldn't have had to talk about other pubs in Grantham, too. Uncle G (talk) 09:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Anthro stuff

Before User:Andrewjlockley came along with his mass of redirects and see alsos to back up his new article 6th Extinction already existed as a redirect to Holocene extinction event. We should not redefine 6th extinction as 'Anthropocene extinction' per AJL's limited POV understanding of the science. I am simply trying to get some scientific claritiy here as opposed to AJLs rather intricate content forking. We are falling into the trap of allowing the definition of neologism terms on wikipedia to suit an individual's content forking purposes. Polargeo (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Blue pig again

Thanks for responding. I have done for you as I suggested and copied your response over to my talkpage. I would appreciate if you copied over any further response you may have to my talkpage so I am kept up to date on the discussion. I have added some material on Blue Pig to the Pub Names article, and so having now overcome your sole objection, I have redirected Blue Pig to that article. Please be aware that I have created Blue Pig, Grantham for those looking for the pub in Grantham. It could be seen as presumptious to assume that someone looking for the significance of the pub name "Blue Pig", or for an actual Blue Pig pub in any other location that they should be looking for the one in Grantham. The significance of the use of the word "Blue" (for both Blue Pug and a variety of other pub names which use Blue) is given in the Pub Names article, which is sourced. Assistance with expanding the Pub names article would be appreciated. SilkTork * 14:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Conrad Murray

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Conrad Murray. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment on checkuser

You asked a fair question on RFAR, but its a general question about checkuser so it's not really specific to that case. I've had a go at an answer.

It can and does take just minutes to find that diff, but the thing is, only if you know to look for it. Durova didn't know, nor Ottava, nor the people who looked for evidence and reported they hadn't found any that was solid enough at the time.

What you're asking sounds reasonable,but if someone told you right now, "I suspect users X and Y with thousands of edits might be socks", the amount of work that can go into finding the level of evidence needed is colossal. Even supposing you found that diff in that case, you have to then act as devils advocate, and anticipate the user saying "I was using someone else's computer" or whatever... you then have to be able to show that answer isn't likely either, that's part of it too.

Checkuser elections are going on. When they're done, in a couple of months, ask one of the new checkusers how technically tough it can be to track down the one elusive diff you don't even know whether it's there.

Then consider the pile-on "It must have been his mother/wife/invisible friend, checkuser abuse!" and the extra work to produce evidence - not say-so - that would show all the alternative good faith reasons are implausible or unlikely.

Checkuser work is easy looking back, like a lot of things. In this case the quickest logical route is - "If they are socks, they may have stacked. Let's look at major project pages where stacking might have been more serious. 9 times out of 10 all you'd get is "yes, they both stated a view on this discussion. In Geogre's case you'd find a resigned edit a minute later. But that's easy to say in hindsight.

In the case of more serious sock-users - Poetlister, Mantanmoreland, and now, Geogre - these are sophisticated competent users (or abusers) with many contributions. Traces may be expected to be scanty, and often considerable insight is needed to realize where such iron-clad evidence might be found, and then dig it out and show it is significant, even if in retrospect it's easy to point it out.

Hope that answers it a bit. There's some more explanation on what's involved, and some analysis of the logs, at Misplaced Pages talk:CheckUser#Checkuser usage.

FT2  04:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• You're not paying attention. Durova did know. Xe wants to know why Risker didn't talk about the matter and whether Risker knew. And this isn't about CheckUser at all. I direct you, with deliberate irony, to User:Durova/Wikisleuthing.

  Oh, and don't teach your Uncle G to suck eggs. I was a year ahead of you on the whole Poetlister thing. I even located the same sockpuppetry on non-WMF wikis, as you'll note I said in that edit. Note also who did a lot of the reviewing at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 31#Sockpuppet cleanup. Your only consolation perhaps is that Wikiquote finally got wise a fortnight behind your block. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• A small correction here, and an apology for misreading the diffs you provided. I had thought you were only referring to the April 2007 one - the January 2009 diff was helpful, thanks for finding that. Carcharoth (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Geogre

There's a whole lot of background here, involving what I tend to think of as "The Usual Suspects", a small group of editors who all know each other and who all have some sort of complex internecine feud, that would give Dynasty a run for its money, going. It's the same people over and over again, and they've come up at the Administrators' Noticeboard and Arbitration with a depressing regularity over the past half decade or more. I could reel you off a list of names. But so, probably, could you, and it would be the same list.

Like most people, I suspect, I tend to skip over those. The current Jimbo-Bishonen dispute, that you've also commented on, is just more of the same. Like most people, I suspect, I'm just not interested in their mutual squabbling and find it of no relevance whatsoever, and I wish that they would all understand that, and not think it all so gosh-darn important that everyone has to stop what they are doing and pay attention and that it has to be shoe-horned into all other discussions.

It's a shame that Geogre is involved in this. Unlike several of the Usual Suspects, xe has actually proven useful, in my experience. I've invoked xyr spectre a few times, and adopted several good ideas that xe conceived/exemplified, including the good idea, based upon the principle that administrators can read, that it's completely daft to label discussion contributions with boldfaced "Comment". Xe also articulated Geogre's Law.

One has to read these continual little affairs in the context of years of background, since the people involved tend to write to address those who share in the history, as those are almost inevitably the other parties involved. Unfortunately for them, I and (I suspect) others are really not interested in following their little soap opera. As I said, I suspect that most people wish they would start to grasp how irrelevant their infighting is, and how damaging it becomes when it spills over with real effect onto the rest of us with things like "Association of Editors Who All Agree that They Are Superior to You" committees. Uncle G (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. People edit in different areas of Misplaced Pages and it's inevitable if people edit in the same area that they will encounter the same names. I don't often get involved in ArbCom issues, but when I do I tend to see the same names. When I get involved in AfD, I see the same names. Good Articles - the same names. Etc. When I edit notability essays I see the same names - some intersections with ArbCom in relation to BLP. Edit MoS articles and there are often intersections with notability essay people, and also with ArbCom people. When I edit Beer articles I see the same names - sadly people who don't appear to get involved with much else in Misplaced Pages! Mostly I feel that ArbCom and what happens there is a world within a world, and doesn't (thankfully) - as you suggest - have much of an impact on the real day to day editing. I am also aware from my previous jaunts into ArbCom territory, that a number of the people there have egos the size of Zeppelins - which is fine, as large egos can drive organisations into interesting territories; but such egos need to be monitored carefully to ensure that they don't drive us into unwanted territories. I don't think that Geogre has done a big wrong - I think the person has succumbed to a natural temptation to support himself in debates. Shrug. No big deal. However, regardless of valued contributions, long standing service and friends in ArbCom, this is deceitful behaviour which we don't wish Admins to display. Those voted in by the community to look into these matters - ArbCom - have no choice but to admonish and desysop him. As he is generally in good standing with the community, I think, given time to let the matter cool down, the community will accept him back as an Admin. I was disappointed to read his statement. I understand what you are saying that the intended audience for what he wrote was not Misplaced Pages but the ArbCom regulars. However, it did reveal an aspect of that person's character that might have been better kept private. The statement did reveal poor judgement which goes hand in hand with the use of the alternative account. I personally wouldn't oppose him in a RFA, but neither would I support him.

I saw something you wrote about Postcard Cathy on ANI the other day which I liked very much. (I did a random click into your contributions as I was not familiar with your work). Keep well. SilkTork * 19:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Which part did you like? Uncle G (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What you said here. A voice of reason and tolerance - which is at the heart of Misplaced Pages. If an encyclopedia cannot be reasonable and tolerant, then it cannot reflect with honesty, neutrality and completeness the sum of human knowledge. SilkTork * 10:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I was away for much of the Bishonen-Jimbo drama. Looking back at it, I agree entirely with your comment above. Cool Hand Luke 14:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Make it stop, please...

...I am begging you. S/he is out of control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:IB_Diploma_Programme

Wow. You're an IB foreign language teacher and you don't know how to insert diacritical symbols? ñóúúÿàáâãäåèéêëìíîï ........translation: YIKES! ObserverNY (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Thank you La mome (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:IB_Diploma_Programme&diff=prev&oldid=305147502

La mome (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:IB_Diploma_Programme&diff=prev&oldid=305113483

La mome (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I redirected Asiaphile to Asian fetish

Hi, Uncle G. I noticed that you suggested merging Asian fetish to an article with a more neutral name. It is a move that I support, since the title of the article attracted archives of heated discussion. You'll notice that I redirected Asiaphile to Asian fetish. Although it had sources, the article was brief and its content and sources overlapped heavily with the Asian fetish article, so I found it redundant. I hope that other users support what I did. I'm telling you this, because I wasn't sure if you were still interested in editing those articles. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 08:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for the link to your thoughts about article triage. Very useful. Although not policy, it is well written enough for study and consultation. It is even better than some WP policies! User F203 (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Read the section all of the way to the end. It is taken from policy. Uncle G (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you help solve a(n unimportant) mystery?

UncleG, I'm not totally how I got here tonight, but I did, and it opened up a real mystery to me. The AfD is a no-brainer; the decision to turn into a redirect to Unschooling could have been closed by a baboon. But I read the comments, for whatever reason, and I saw that the editors were acting contempuous of the editor who had created the article. Their words are inexplicably harsh, I thought, but then again, not seeing what the article looked like, I might not know. So since it had simply been turned into a redirect, I thought I should be able to look in article history and see the old article.

So I went here. To my surprise, there was virtually no history to be found--only three edits altogether: , , and . Very puzzling also are the dates: Sept. 25, 2005, and then a two year jump to May, 2007. The middle edit is obvious vandalism, properly reverted. But the (first) mystery to me then is where is the article that was brought to AfD? The AfD was in September of 2005, and the only version from that month shows nothing but a redirect. I don't get it. Yet I'm not all that concerned about that.

What really has me freaked out is that, reading the edit history, I may have been involved in the article and don't remember it. Look at this edit summary. The editor is explicitly reverting me, to read his summary. And yet, a) I do not show up in the edit history, and b) I have no memory of being involved with this redirect. To make matters more baffling, the date of the AfD is exactly one week after I signed up for Misplaced Pages back in 2005. And one of the editors says, Malformed redirect to a user describing himself.". Is it possible that I actually did that when I first signed up? I have no memory of it, and the edit history doesn't show it.

So did I ever make any contributions to Unschool (and I am asking about the redirect/article, not to Unschooling, to which I know I have made occasional contributions.) Are you able to enlighten me? I know that sometimes admins can view things that we mere mortals cannot. Unschool 03:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• You created your user page at Unschool (not User:Unschool) in 2005. Jkelly userfied it for you. After Yonir started Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Unschool, RHaworth deleted the resultant redirect and Silensor created a new one. As for Mikieminnow, xe was trying to revert your edit here but for some reason saved the reversion in entirely the wrong article. Uncle G (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. I can see how I would have created a User page in the mainspace when I first joined; I would guess that other idiots have popped up periodically and done the same. Wow, I can't believe I sparked an AfD in my first week without even knowing what AfD was! (But shouldn't someone have discussed it with me on my talk page?) That second thing with Mikieminnow remains weird, but I guess I'll just forget about it. Thanks, again! Unschool 22:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Public houses and inns in Grantham

Thanks for the advice, but...

Thanks for the advice, but frankly, I'm gobsmacked. I'm still relatively new here, but I have run across the terms inclusionist or deletionist many times. I honestly cannot recall a time when it gave me even a hint of Godwin's law. I just reviewed Deletionist, and it is clearly written in a humorous way; not even the barest hint that it is a term to be avoided. Of course, I can easily imagine a battle between inclusionists and deletionists; Afd is full of them, but the battles were over application of rules, not affrontry(sorry, not a real word but it should be) at the terms. I do appreciate that you were trying to be helpful, but until I see some evidence that the term is viewed as disparaging, it's going to be hard to remember. I just reviewed Deletionism. Not a hint that the term is considered offensive. --SPhilbrickT 13:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• You'll learn from experience, as many others have. And as you do so, bear in mind the differences, both in content and in governing policies, between encyclopaedia articles about Misplaced Pages and what is to be found in project space and on Meta. Uncle G (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

WQA

Please note, I have raised a WQA for your contributions across several of the AFDs I recently raised in order to get another viewpoint on whether your actions meet recommended policy.—Ash (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Seven day run

I'm not asking you to weigh in for or against deletion, although of course you're more than welcome to do, but consistent with what you said at ANI (which was right on the money), it would be terribly helpful if you could say or do something at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Orly Taitz (3rd nomination) to ensure that it runs for the full seven days. I'm seeing an awful lot of users demanding yet another premature close, despite the fact that it was premature closes that created this mess. That ought to be avoided; the AFD should have its full run, as it should have in the first place.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Copley Plaza

Hey, thanks for picking up the baton by adding sources in. Fences&Windows 00:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Studio Albums

What I meant was, why not salt the exact terms Fifth Studio Album, Sixth Studio Album, and so on? I didn't mean salt strings like Eminem's Seventh Studio Album, because if it was notable the title would be appropriate. Abductive (reasoning) 11:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• You cannot generalize about those, either. Sometimes such names are the titles. Look at the name of the album that precedes Korn's ninth studio album (AfD discussion). Or look at the names that are used on, say, Amazon for some of Adamo's studio albums. Uncle G (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Has there ever been an album named Seventh Studio Album? Or Third Studio Album? Amazon didn't do it, btw.

    If Ninth Studio Album was salted, nothing would have prevented moving KoRn's album to KoRn's Ninth Studio Album, right? Finally, salting can be removed by just asking any admin and presenting a reasonable case. Abductive (reasoning) 20:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

    • Amazon has a "Studio Album No. 7" listed for Adamo. As I said, go and look at some of the names that actually occur. Uncle G (talk) 09:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Usually, albums on Misplaced Pages are titled Blabla Bla (Foo album), so I think I am right; salting these names will force the editors to add the name of the artist to the title, not prevent them from creating the article. Preventing these sorts of articles is not my goal. Abductive (reasoning) 09:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Distinguishers in parentheses are used when there is more than one article that could take the same name, and the article in question is clearly not the most important. One should not be creating names with distinguishers in parentheses unless the name is already in use, or there are naming guidelines for the topic that call for such distinguishers. -- Donald Albury 12:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
          • But these are not their names... Abductive (reasoning) 14:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for De Heidebloem, Erica

I've replied at T:TDYK. Mjroots (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK query

Hi, Thanks for your response to my DYK entry on List of programmes broadcast by CITV. I was not aware about the most recent Ofcom ruling and can't seem to find any more recent sources. I wanted to put a fact about the first or longest-running series on CITV but there are very few sources. Can you suggest another fact or hook? 03md 08:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have written an alternative hook on the DYK page. Can you check it again? 03md 15:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your thoughtful participation in my RfA. I will do my best to take the criticism to heart and improve my communication style. As for AfDs I will go slow and be sure I learn the basics first, and I will not forget that I am first and foremost an editor. I will work to gain your trust by dilligent work.

Opinion

Your opinion would be appreciated here. Thanks, Majorly talk 15:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ludovic Sané and Paul Lasne

Where is your proof? Please provide it, as according to the LFP website, which is officially responsible for compiling statistics for Ligue 1 players, neither have yet to make a first team appearance. Playing for Bordeaux's second team in the amateur division does not mean an appearance for the first team. RCO Agde and Lormont FC are amateur clubs playing in amateur leagues and WP:ATHLETE clearly states you have to appear in a professional league.

Here's their LFP pages:

Paul Lasne Ludovic Sane

I suggest you put the deletion pages back up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joao10Siamun (talk • contribs) 18:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Whipple Van Buren Phillips

You mentioned in your comments on the AFD page that there were nine paragraphs of information on Whipple Van Buren Phillips. The sources that I found when I did my research: & were all top results for google and either only mentioned him in connection to HP Lovecraft or gave details of his life that I didn't feel established him as a notable individual. An example that I gave to another user was that my great great grandfather was a master plumber in Pittsburgh and installed plumbing in many of the major buildings. He was considered the best in his field, and the info that I have on him reads very much like the second source I listed above. Plenty of information, quite a remarkable life, but nothing that jumped out at me as establishing a threshold of notability. Do you feel that the information in these sources, or any others you may have, would serve to establish his notability? HarlandQPitt (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up

A proper closing would have discounted my !vote, but of course it's always better not to leave a closing to the chance that it'll be done well, so I changed to "Strong keep". Thanks for helping save the article. -- Noroton (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: grey literature subjects