User:Pontificalibus/Archive/02

Vandalism
Your latest edits amount to vandalism please stop immediately.

Thank you for letting me try to help millons not get sick. I am an RIT science graduate of mechanical engineering, practicing HVAC thermal controls engineer for the NYS offices. At least give me a chance to find an expert to addendum the article with some further information about how enviromental control affects illness suceptability. Within the article there is no mention of thermal biological fluidmechanics and the adverse affects of ecomonmy space enviromental control the cold weather season. Cold weather indirectly affects the propigation of viral strains, and cold weather does affect illness rates as compared to summer. It's just common sense, we can feel cold when the air has low enthalpy and our surroudnigns are stealing our heat through radiation heat transfer, cold and dry makes the lymph slow. When we slow transport the viruses do their bussiness uninterupted in one spot. Who would ever want to admit that keeping warm and hydrated would raise immunity, it would cost facility owners a fortune. Sorry HVAC controls and common sense doesn't make sense to you. I can rewrite it if you wish sire.

This is the only warning we give you today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikebinger (talk • contribs) 11:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Urban75
Hi

I don't know why you accuse you me of being jontyjoseph i am frankly outraged by this as I have only been part of urban community for a few months.

Please re-tract your accusations as you have no proof its wrong to accuse just because we agree with each other and we disagree with your view

thanks --Enemytrue2 (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, to add to the topic of Urban75, please can you stop making changes to others work and discuss on talk page first.

Thank you ! --Ze grrrl gamer (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I too have been accused of being a sock. Odd really seeing as a I hardly ever use wikipedia and am registered user on URban with over 15,000 posts.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheUrbanite (talk • contribs) 18:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

DVLA
mywheels and dvla. The site mywheels claim to charge for DVLA data but in fact they do not. MoneyMate (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless the link doesn't really belong in the article. See WP:SPAM -- Pontificalibus (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed site has changed MoneyMate (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Rod Liddle using wikipedia to advertise his work
He is using his page to advertise his crappy work. Plesea can you delete his books it looks like he thinks he is Charles Dickens. No one had even read most of his books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BuffyWhodonit (talk • contribs) 09:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Camelford
Camelford? I'd almost forgotten about that! It would be good to have a comprehensive survey summarising all the published documents. I doubt I'll have time, but I'll contribute if I can. Emrys2 (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Nathan J Lester
Hello Pontificalibus, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Nathan J Lester - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 11:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with the critera but I didn't believe the assertion of importance or significance was credible in this instance. A list of years for unspecified awards is not sufficient information to be credible. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you're familiar with the criteria you should know that if notability is asserted, it isn't worthy of speedy deletion. The deletion process for articles that assert notability is PROD (as I see you have done) or AFD. Please take another look at the CSD criteria, thanks! --Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 12:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I believed an article needed to make "any credible claim of significance or importance". I don't think there was such a claim here. If there was could you point it out to me? Sorry if I come across as accusatory, but I genuinely can't see what the credible claim is here! --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure! Where it says "won numerous awards for his work", this statement is enough "assertion" to make you have to take the article deletion process to the next step, ie PROD. --Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 12:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Out of interest what counts as "credible". I note A7 "does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible". Are there guidelines as to what is credible or not? --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Altered Speedy Deletion rationale: Kellyville-Rouse Hill Bushrangers
Hello Pontificalibus, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have deleted a page you tagged (Kellyville-Rouse Hill Bushrangers) under a criterion different from the one your provided, which was inappropriate or incorrect. CSD criteria are narrow and specific to protect the encyclopedia, and the process is more effective if the correct deletion rationale is supplied. Consider reviewing the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 11:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but this article was a clear case of db-club, it may have been G11 also, but often articles can fall under more than one category. However the critera I chose was not incorrect. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Virus
I assumed it was a web-related virus (per A&: Web content). Understood, thanks. --  fetch  comms  ☛ 23:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User:Smithers7/Guestbook, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Bihco (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's his vandalism page -- Pontificalibus (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

A glass of grog for ye


Arr!! Talk like a pirate (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Gracie and Zarkov
While examining the editorial actions of a sockpuppet I ran across a number of bad faith nominations. This was one of the deletions I overturned after finding a significant number of sources pointing to its notability. Please let me know if you are not comfortable with this action. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Good Call
On the Josh Milton article I was paring down to see if any of it could be saved. Looking aqt the refs apparently not. Good call. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It was the "he graduated in 2011" bit that initially rang my alarm bells. :-) -- Pontificalibus (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam


Daniel Mamora
Hi. I must disagree with your removal of the speedy tag from Daniel Mamora. The article (created by a user with the same name as the subject) states that the subject is a student at a K-12 school who has been a substitute announcer on The Price is Right and is a host at a major-market radio station. That alone defies logic. A little bit of investigation produces no evidence whatever that the latter two claims are true. Wikipedia's been punked. JTRH (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You had tagged the article as a blatant hoax. This applies only when no investigation is necessary (e.g. Daniel is head of the United Nations and King of England.) When I read it this was not the case - if I'd known what Loma Linda Academy was or what K-12 meant I might have thought differently I suppose. However I have now tagged it appropriately under critera A7, as there is no credible assertion of importance or significance. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! JTRH (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Terror law
A terror law is one that allows policemen to sneak up behind criminals and shout BOOO!.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * lol! -- Pontificalibus (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

slap me
OK bend over and i'll get the buttery asparagous.Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Emergency Aid Links on Haitian Earthquake Site
Then please replace it with something better, don't just leave it with nothing. Lives depend on it.

America is the closest developed nation to the disaster and should therefore be well represented. 69.171.160.147 (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.147 (talk)

Haitians in Miami
''Hundreds gathered Wednesday night for a prayer service at Notre Dame d'Haiti Catholic Church in Miami. At the beginning of a Creole song of mourning, attendees were restrained. But emotions gradually erupted and by the end of the hymn people were wailing, some of them kneeling in tears with their hands in the air, or even rolling on the floor.''

''Father Reginald Jean-Mary reminded them that Haiti has historically suffered misfortune followed by worldwide apathy. But he said Haitians are the children of God as much as anyone, and they deserve common fairness. ''

"Worry bordering on despair" was paraphrased, and I think rather conservatively. Everyone is waiting for news. Miami's Little Haiti neighborhood is significantly affected by this. Do you have a way to express this other than the wording I added to the 2010 Haiti earthquake article? --Moni3 (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is obvious that many people waiting for news will be worried, we don't need to tell people in the article. See Words_to_avoid. Also, the quote you give above is a group of people at a prayer service, not "Miami's Haitian population of 110,000" described in the article. I expect those 110,000 will be feeling a lot of different things, including happiness and indifference depending on what news they have. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The focus of the article is a neighborhood with significant ties to the disaster. What you expect is not relevant. It is what is represented in the source. So, again, how would you--and read the source, please--convey the ideas in this article in one phrase? Work with me here. I'm saying that Miami's Little Haiti neighborhood is waiting for news is insufficient. While people waiting for news express worry I admit may seem obvious, there are 110,000 Haitians in Miami, and the source represents many of them as quite emotional. How would you represent this idea? I'm watching your page, so a talkback template is unnecessary. --Moni3 (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been thinking about this but I just can't imagine any adjectives that could be added here so as to enhance the article.-- Pontificalibus (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Another source. And another. The Miami Herald does not have these stories, I suppose, because they do not have specific stories about the Little Haiti neighborhood. They are, however, printing in Creole, which I have never seen before. --Moni3 (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt the sources, I'm just concerned that our reporting of them must not make the article seem sensationalist or otherwise less encyclopedic. I don't think adding extra adjectives here will provide more information beyond what would already be evident to any reader of the article. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I suppose we are diverging on what we consider accurate vs. sensationalist and what constitutes encyclopedic writing. I do not consider it sensationalist to summarize the sources to say that Miami's Little Haiti neighborhood is deeply affected by the earthquake worsened by the disruption in communications. I do not consider them extra adjectives either. Encyclopedic writing does not mean representing issues without any emotion at all, especially if sources specifically express the intensity of such emotion. Humans are clearly affected by this event; writing for an encyclopedia allows us to represent how they feel about it. Do you have suggestions about how to convey what these sources have written? --Moni3 (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I made this change. I do think we disagree somewhat as I found the main point from those 2 articles you have there is that many are "waiting in limbo" for news, which I think was originally conveyed quite adequately. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there is room to expand this when much more information comes out about the connections of friends and families between Miami and Haiti. I'll compromise on "anxiously" and welcome your assistance to expand this when more developments come to light. Thank you for working with me. --Moni3 (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, although it might be better in Response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake where there would be more room for writing about this, and keeping the section in the main article as more of a summary of that. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism on 2010 Haiti earthquake
Thanks for removing the stupid 'hitler dead' vandalism Pigeonshouse (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The page was under a co-ordinated attack but it's protected from anonymous edits now.-- Pontificalibus (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Haiti help by National governments
Pontificalibus, you suggested that I:

"please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding".

Would you help me understand why the citations/footnotes are not adequate. The sources I cited (Newspapers, government agencies) do not appear to be unreliable?Swensink (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you mean this? The first paragraph about France had a reference. However this was followed by several paragraphs of detailed information that had no references. Do you have sources for these as well? -- Pontificalibus  (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I see the page has been updated since I removed your unsourced content and someone has added a a tag asking for additional references. Give me some time to review the references that are now there and see if the tag can be removed.-- Pontificalibus (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OK thanks. Await your comments.Swensink (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems ok now, so I removed the references tag that another editor put there.-- Pontificalibus (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, I appreciate your help as I am a little new to this.Swensink (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, feel free to ask if you have any more questions.-- Pontificalibus (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Venezuelan accusation
Hi, what part of the talk page of 2010 Haiti earthquake exactly should I look? I looked at the one with the HAARP conspiracy theory. One thing is that the section I added to the article wasn't promoting or providing information about the (highly questionable link) between HAARP and the earthquake but instead about the accusation of the Venezuelan government (the note was published by its main news organ) to the United States of America. While the content of the accusation (IMO is) can be nonsense, the fact that a government is making echo of such a thing is an important (political) event [linked to the earthquake]. It is like the Bush administration claiming the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Whether or not it is true is questionable, but it is important news that a government is making such a claim. Thats why the section I added to the article wasn't approving or disapproving the content of the accusation information but just stating it as something claimed by a government about another government in relation to this earthquake. Please, give me some feedback in the talk page of that article. Thanks.  franklin  00:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is about the earthquake. This is clearly a fringe theory. Yes it comes from a national government but has no bearing on the situation we are trying to cover in the article (unlike the weapons of mass destruction claim which was a notable aspect of the invasion of Iraq). Perhaps you might consider saying something in United States – Venezuela relations? -- Pontificalibus (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Three Hares
You dropped a reference, which I put back. I recommend that one, as it has a lot of good perspective and content. I'll go do something else (don't want to get in your way), and maybe you can add more to the article. Happy editing. 7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Stan
 * Thanks, I will take a look at that ref. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion and later rewriting my invitation on your talk page
Just thought you may want to know, an alternate account deleted my poorly worded invitation on your talk page. Some editors disagreed about these deletions. and also went to ANI about it.

I actually appreciate this deletion because I completely rewrote the template. The template was inviting you here: here.

Thanks for your work! Ikip 04:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

censorship

 * Will the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Haiti_earthquake_conspiracy_theories page be deleted if it has refrences? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.184.58.114 (talk) 07:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
kelapstick (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Where's the Pope?
Removed prod from Where's the Pope?. Supplied a ref from The Who's Who of Australian Rock [on-line] version.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 09:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is 2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

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 Articles for deletion/2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories (2nd nomination). 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) 01:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You broke the no three revert rule
How convenient of you to break the no reverting a page more than three times in a day while I get called the vandal, isn't it?

When do you think you'll be banned, Wikipedia? Let's see how intellectually honest and not arbitrary, Wikipedia is.Unreliablepedia (talk)


 * As a new user who is strangely familiar with this rule, you will know it does not apply to vandalism. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hoaxer Clintboyer1
Thanks. I assumed too much that he wasn't stupid - putting the same article in again with another name was not the brightest thing to do. Another admin got to him first. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh is that what he did? I didn't see the first hoax. Thought he must either be a very quick writer or have a whole bunch of pre-prepared ones to upload. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Infobox
Okay, sorry, P. What is the way to edit these boxes, in that case? That particular one had a very odd-looking casualties section. SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 20:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That makes sense: add new parameters but not delete old ones. I placed the casualties parameters back at the bottom, by the way, because the new position in the middle made them look odd because of the colour bar. Maybe I'll try to play around to see where best to place them. I'll revert myself if I do anything major. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 21:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, you're right, the casualties do look better in the middle. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 21:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please USE THE TALK PAGE - do not just delete!
It comes close to vandalism - re Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories.93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't write in two place at once - check now! -- Pontificalibus (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you!93.96.148.42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident‎‎
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. -- TS 15:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
for reverting that piece of vandalism to my page, greatly appreciated. Kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 23:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * no problem -- Pontificalibus (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

CopyVio??
Howdy,

I'm sorry, but before doing this and accusing me of copyright violations, did you even bother to check the [linked source] of the text? At archive.org the whole 1922 issue of The Entomologist seems to be handled as "NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT" (probably due to age, pre 1923 and all that?). Even with that I tried finding info on the author (W.J. Lucas, entomologist) but could find nothing definite (only one hint that he may have died in 1922 too, but not clear enough it was the same person). So, I've assumed proper reasoning/research by archive.org. If you have proper reason to believe that the copyright status on archive.org is incorrect, please let me know. If not, please be so kind to redo your undo. Cheers, 82.75.10.66 (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, I have restored the text.-- Pontificalibus (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All's well that ends well ;o) Thanks for edits! 82.75.10.66 (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

PROD removed from Institute of Civil Defence and Disaster Studies
On 14 February you placed a dated prod tag on Institute of Civil Defence and Disaster Studies. That prod was removed by User:Maurreen on 18 February. On 21 February you again placed a prod tag on the page.

Prod is only for non-controversial deletions. Once a prod has been contested, you should not add the tag again. Articles may be brought for AfD; see Template:AfD in 3 steps for help. However, since Institute of Civil Defence and Disaster Studies is a redirect and not an article, it should be discussed at Redirects for discussion.

Since the target of the redirect, Institute of Civil Protection and Emergency Management was recently deleted, I will nominate Institute of Civil Defence and Disaster Studies for speedy deletion. Cnilep (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ooops I completely forgot I had previously PRODed that. I was trying to find the correct speedy, but was looking under the Redirects section where it isn't listed, instead of the General section. Anyway, thanks for fixing it! -- Pontificalibus (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

AC Transit bus fight
You're right - when I visited the site all I saw was the "under review" message, but it must have just been a page load error or something.--otherlleft 17:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * no prolem, I notice it loads that bit before the rest so maybe it got stuck.-- Pontificalibus (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  03:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Greater Gabbard
GREATER GABBARD

The information provided is present and correct. All data provided is about the project. This is what happened and where teh project is heading. Therefore, why is teh information not allowed? The text was provided in exactly the same format as the followine paragraph i.e. start date, company, vessel, were from and to, service, end date of project. There should be no objections here!!! If there are, show me where in wikipedia this is not allowed, as most otehr pages whould also be removed due to this format. p.s. are u an administrator? If not. Do not delete my information again. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MBMConsultancy (talk • contribs) 09:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * While you were writing this message, I have replied on your talk page. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In answer to your comments. Yes. The information is relevent. Reason - This is phase two of the Greater gabbard project. Phase 1 came from China and Phase two from Denmark which we designed. Thus, the information is totally relevent. WE are fully involved with the shipwoners, BBC, Fluor, Siemens, and all players. Thus I think all parties involved would not object to the information. Also they would also agree that they would also see the information as an enhancement to the success of their project as it shows innovation and achievement to the project. So I say again, YES, it is relevent. YES - others would add this information. YES - it is factual. YES - it is welcomes by all parties involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MBMConsultancy (talk • contribs) 09:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "a cradle to transport the lower towers for the wind farm in the vertical position. The design was completed and installed on the hatchcover of a sea going vessel" might be suitable for an article about windfarm construction equipment, but it's not useful in this article. Regardless of that, you have a clear conflict of interest in adding this information in contravention of our promotion policies.-- Pontificalibus (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw the point for the first submission. But for the second submission it followed the same outline as the following paragraph. Thus, there is no conflict of interest is all about the greater gabbard project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MBMConsultancy (talk • contribs) 10:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, what do u think this project is all about? It is totally about "Wind Generators" about how the project was undertaken and achieved. About who did what, when and how. This is how the wind turbine towers where transported. Wikipedia requires information, factual information. Well, teh facts about this project is that MBM Consultancy did the design for this project. MBM Consultancy innovated the design to tranpsort the towers and we did it in August 2009 from Denmark to Harwich. We were the first company in the world to do it. If Wikipedia does not want the facts on its site, I am sure there will be others that will. There are many other facts regarding this project that we are involved with, during the start of teh spring phase in 2010 and those facts will not be published here if we are not allowed. Also, there are other projects i.e. BP whiting, and others that we are involved with, and have facts about.
 * Does the Tesco article mention details about the MAN lorries that transport food to it's shops? As you clearly have a conflict of interest, perhaps you should propose your additions on the article's talk page, and see what support they have from from other editors? Note that facts need to be supported by reliable third-party sources. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OK - Where do I present the additions, i.e. where is the articles talk page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MBMConsultancy (talk • contribs) 10:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You can find that here.-- Pontificalibus (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a second too early
If you had waited for another minute, I would have had the source for the tsunami arrival times at 2010 Chile earthquake in place. But you were just ahead of me. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas Willow (talk • contribs) 18:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Anal cleansing
I've been debating whether to nominate it for AfD myself. I just asked another admin that I respect for his opinion. If you take it to AfD, I'll definately support it. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry
AWB must have scrapped it and I did not notice. C6541 (T↔C)  09:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Camelford
Hi Pontificalibus, not sure what happened with the Camelford lead! I seem to have only partially ammended it to bring it in line with other WP:Cornwall places-in-Cornwall articles. Thanks for fixing it. Andy F (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Election protection

 * 22:37, 5 April 2010 Shimgray (talk | contribs | block) changed protection level of United Kingdom general election, 2010 [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 21:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 20:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)) ‎ (calm down the reverting until it's formally announced...)

It's a little confusing to read the log, certainly! I protected it from editing for 24 hours, which'll elapse sometime this evening, but it was already protected from moving due to the edit-warring over the title last year. It's this second protection that elapses in June - the two types can have different expiry dates.

Given both reasons for protection are now a bit passé, I've lifted both... Shimgray | talk | 10:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Cardiff
Hi Pontificalibus, saw your revert at the Cardiff article here and I'm not convinced it was vandalism. It looks like the IP was just trying to add some local info. May be a case of WP:ADVERT though. Would you mind taking another look, please, and consider WP:BITE. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (Moved from Daicaregos' Talk page) The IP is from Concept Publishing Ltd and they have added blatant WP:COI/spam stuff to three UK place articles. They have been warned three times with clear explanations on their talk page and now seem to have desisted. I don't really see any reason to undo my revert and neither do I think WP:BITE applies to my actions in this instance. -- Pontificalibus  (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you from your reply. Fair enough. Although, I didn't ask you to undo your revert, just to reconsider. To prevent misunderstanding, it may be better to label any future reverts as WP:COI or WP:SPAM, rather than vandalism. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Dramatic Performances Act
I saw you just put a copy-paste tag on it. I was about to do the same. It has a lot of hallmarks of copy-pasting, including extended ascii characters (like positional quote marks) and bad character-return formatting. The kind of thing you expect when something's copied in. However I've google searched lots of segments of it and haven't found anything yet. If you come up with anything let me know. I've already left a note on the creator's page regarding the multiple article creation. You might want to attempt something similar asking about this. Shadowjams (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I couldn't find anything either. Going by the style of English, I suppose it could be the author's personal essay, like something they did for college? I will ask them about it. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The first sentence, at least, comes from http://www.indianetzone.com/29/dramatic_performances_act_dpa.htm (on the spam blacklist apparently). Not sure about the rest, might be scattered about.  • ɔ   ʃ   →  15:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Greyson Michael Chance
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Greyson Michael Chance. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

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 Articles for deletion/Greyson Michael Chance. 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) 01:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pontificalibus. Thanks very much for your note and explanation re the spammers, anonymous IPs. Not sure if I am to message you here or on my page. I'll err on the side of caution and do both! Please excuse the dupe. Some of the ways here are still unknown to me. thanks again RodeoDriver (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk To Frank
Hi there,

Why is talktofrank.com not a reliable source?

The page is the face of government anti-drugs campaign and is therefore likely to include scientifically proven examples and other substantiated information.

Many thanks, Dvmedis (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You state yourself that it's an anti-drugs campaigning website, and the material on there is likely to be chosen specifically with that POV in mind. If there are "scientifically proven examples" then we should reference those scientific journals or similar publications that orginally published the research.


 * Specifically, their claim that "It is likely that substances sold as naphyrone or “NRG-1” actually contain one or more illegal Class B cathinone derivatives." appears to be pure conjecture. One can however say for certain that the perpetuation of such conjecture as fact would support the known agenda of the site. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Zendegi


The article Zendegi has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Book article with no assertion of notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Drdisque (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Chinese subs
Since when is a Submarine made of "manure and grass" not a hoax? (not arguing with your redirection of the article, but suggesting perhaps that the article may not have been fully read before you made your decision).
 * Yeah didn't see that bit, was focusing on the pinyin to see if it was real or not. Anyway at least I remember to sign my comments! --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops! (that's a personal pet peeve of my own...shame on me!) Wuh Wuz  Dat  19:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:UK MP links
Hi, I undid the recent edit you made to this page. Check out User:Georgemn1991's contributions... all related to linking that site around.  Them From  Space  10:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I was just trying to help Georgemn1991 on the technical side of things, assuming good faith. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Men and rape
I restored this redirect as legitimate, whatever the dispute. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)