User talk:A Stop at Willoughby/Archive 2

NJ government info
Yes, I've found such info in NJ articles, and because they're not relevant to those articles, I've removed them. Correct me if I'm wrong but "It's standard" just seems like a euphemism for "that's the way it is", when we should be discussing whether it's "the way it should be". Obviously, information that does not pertain to an article's subject does not belong in that article. It's one thing to mention that Bayonne is in the tenth and thirteenth Congressional districts and 31st legislative district, and that a resident is one of its representatives in that district. It's completely another to digress to an explanation of those districts, because the article isn't about them. It's about Bayonne. Any information that does not pertain to Bayonne has no business in the article. The information I removed, and which you restored, mentioned Tom DeGise, John Corzine, and several other people that have nothing to do with Bayonne. The only information that should be mentioned is what districts Bayonne is in, and any natives who represent it. The rest belongs only in articles that are about those districts. Nightscream (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, both govern Bayonne, and mentioning the district in which they do so is the only manner in which that information bears upon that particular city. Further information explaining the structure of the district, however, does not. That info belongs in an article on that district. Let me know where the discussion is once you've begun it. Nightscream (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for August 2009
SoxBot (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Rollback
added it for you -- Samir 20:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, Samir. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Willoughby! ...Willoughby! ...Willoughby, sir? (Sorry, just had to. Great episode!) decltype (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, absolutely. A true classic. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Fester Smith‎
How about a comment on the current CheckUser sock case? Sockpuppet investigations/The abominable Wiki troll‎ -- Unquestionable Truth -- 03:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a comment, and I'll be sure to comment if there's anything else of value that I can add. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Processed cheese
Technically speaking, many people would regard my edit as accurate information. But I understand Wikipedia must try to retain a neutral point of view, so it had to be reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.136.30 (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly; it's an opinion and/or a joke edit, and while it may be funny or even accurate in your opinion, it's not a proper part of an encyclopedia. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Honest services fraud
Hello! Your submission of Honest services fraud at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Geraldk (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
I just want to thank you for this and this. It was quick and professional. Tymek (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Uncontroverted thanks

 * Thanks for this one too! - Wikidemon (talk) 05:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome! I think that's the most appropriate stub template, but let me know if you come across a better one. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

ACW TLC
You marked the page ACW TLC with G1. This article has information. In the future, mark articles like this as A1. A1 says that the article doesn't have enough information to identify its subject.  Btilm 04:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I must appoligize. I get those two confused because they both end in 1.   Btilm  04:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Malware?
One thought occurred to me as to the politickernj security issue. It is certainly plausible that the owner may not be aware of the security considerations involved or, less likely but still plausible, that his website might have been compromised in some way. Perhaps a heads-up might be appreciated. McAfee SiteAdvisor has an appeal process for website owners which he/she might wish to pursue.

One thing fersure, the " Warning: Dangerous Downloads " label attached to a SiteAdvisor enhanced Yahoo or Google search for politickernj is not something I'd want associated with my website. As you source from there frequently, perhaps you'd like to advise the owner? JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Men's News Daily
I understand the WP:WEB criteria to mean a site or its content "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Maybe I'm reading the criteria for notability too narrowly, but can you point out any published accounts about the site or its content from reliable secondary sources? The article doesn't. Thanks, VegetativePup (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI
In case you missed it. Tan  &#124;  39  04:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

NFCC
You may want to adjust your comment as the file appears to fail WP:NFCC.--Rockfang (talk) 06:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Jaden Adrastos Callaway
Hi. You tagged this article as a copyvio, but it wasn't that, because the source is a copy from Wikipedia and carries a GFDL release. I have deleted the article anyway under A7, but looking more closely G3 "hoax" would have been appropriate because it is a straight copy of our existing article Neil Fallon with only the name changed! Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct; thanks for catching my mistake. That's what I get for patrolling new pages at an ungodly hour of the morning. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

CSD
Sorry, I thought he was trying to remove the tag itself (I always forget about G7!) Thanks for telling me!--  fetch  comms  ☛ 22:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Anti-turkism
What is not constructive is I believe most of the content in that page. Please note that Wikipedia is not a hate site. There are plenty of them out there on the web. Users are welcome to contribute flaming content to those websites, but not to Wikipedia. --Muratkaval (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that Wikipedia is not a hate site, and I have no personal interest in preserving or removing any content of the article in question. However, when making even the most remotely controversial removals of large chunks of content, please do use edit summaries. Otherwise it looks as though you're trying to vandalize and/or edit war blindly. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent what others say
Why don't you stay out of discussions in which you're unwilling to find out what they're about? You wrote:
 * Frankly, redirects are so easy to re-create if the article is re-created, this is a non-issue.

I was talking about redirects created for pre-emptive purposes, when their target has never existed. I explained why they should exist. If you disagree, why don't you deal with that? If I create several hundred such links (as indeed I did, before the putative policy was put there without proper consensuss), is it easy for me to recreate them AFTER the MERGE issue arises, which would have been prevented by such redirects? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not intentionally misrepresent what you said; I merely misunderstood it. Please assume good faith. I responded to your arguments at the discussion at WT:CSD. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Name-related articles tagged as stubs
I've been working on a series of articles on the subject of Roman names. Yesterday three articles, on the praenomina Manius, Marcus, and Mettius, were tagged as stubs. I believe they should not be considered stubs. Although most of the articles contain only a few paragraphs, they were intended to be reasonably comprehensive without becoming highly technical. It would be difficult to provide more detail from any readily-available source; even the most extensive classical reference encyclopedias don't contain as much information about these names. I'd like to request that the stub tag be removed from these articles. P Aculeius (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for calling my attention to that. My cursory examination of the articles earlier led me to believe that they were stubs, as they seemed as though they might have been too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of their subjects. But as their creator, you obviously know more about the subjects than I do. If you feel that an stub-tagged article provides encyclopedic coverage of a subject, you are always free to remove the stub tag, as you were in this case. Anyway, I've removed the tags. Keep up the good article work! A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm still pretty new to writing for Wikipedia, and I don't really know much about the editing protocols. I thought there might have been an important reason for tagging them that I didn't know about, or that if I removed the tags they'd simply be put back with a warning not to remove them again.  I need to get used to the idea of other people editing and revising my work, since it's going to happen, whether I like it or not.  But in any case, I thought it was best to let you know what I wanted to do before doing it myself.  Thank you again!  P Aculeius (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, and thanks again for your good article work. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Section
An article that you have been involved in editing, Section, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. –  imis ☂ 01:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

re: your message
Hi A Stop at Willoughby, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- User:Marek69. 18:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

CSD tagging
Hi A Stop at Willoughby, I've been deleting some of the articles you've been tagging for speedy deletion, and I noticed several where you didn't warn the author that you'd tagged their article. Most CSd tags generate the code for a tag that you can just cut and paste onto the author's talkpage.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 19:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right; I apologize. I usually do cut-and-paste the warnings over, but the volume of new articles pouring in just a few minutes ago was rather high. Sorry for my negligence; I've gone through and issued the appropriate warnings. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and happy editing  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 20:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All in day's work. Thanks for the WikiBeer, and for the understanding. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)