User talk:AndrewHowse/Archive 2

Richard Peaslee
Thank you for cleaning up the slap dash job I did on Richard Peaslee! — Robert Greer (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Media Vision USA
Hi Andrew, I edited some part of the article as you advised me. I added some part for notability but not sure if that's ok. Can you please check it out User:Fresh01a/Sandbox when you get a chance? Thanks!! Fresh01a (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

RE:Bot help desired at WP:EAR
Sure thing. Just let me know the specifics of how many days and what templates exactly you mean by "other similar templates", and I can set it up immediately.-- Dycedarg  &#x0436;  23:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comments on my surname list
Hi Andrew,

I haven't seen any inapproriate comments from you, so I haven't taken any offence. The detection of identical first and last names is one of the things I will be doing in the future; this is rather hard because my scripts have to be able to detect disambiguation links then. It's on the to-do list. I will now go and write some replies to your comments; I haven't been feeling too well the last few days, so I haven't yet been able to respond. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Richard Fawkes and Richard fawkes
I see you protected the first, and now there's the second. Plse either zap the second as a repost of the first, or move the second to the first per naming conventions. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Gone. Sigh... Stifle (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The Marketing_mix talk page
You wrote: ''I reinstated this comment in order to encourage User:Spinacia to address it rather than just deleting it, which might be in conflict with talk page guidelines. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC) ''
 * This topic conflicts with various Talk_page_guidelines such as Keep on topic and Be positive. The comments do not add to the article nor do they try to improve it. The comment which is accusatory and defamatory deals with content that has been fully removed. No challenge to the actual content was ever made. It can also be argued that the defamatory comments conflict with Wikipedia Etiquette. Finally, this collective matter was addressed on the notice boards where it rightfully belongs. Therfore, this section will be deleted unless challenged.Spinacia (talk) 07:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Baseball Newsletter
--  jj137   ( talk )  02:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

We Shot the Moon
I have to say, tagging band pages for deletion without even consulting WP:MUSIC results in the torpedoing of a lot of legitimate articles. I spend a lot of time rewriting them. The article asserts an international tour, which is one criterion; the band's members come from the highly notable Waking Ashland and Sherwood, which meets another. Also, they have a full-length and an EP out on The Militia Group, which meets a third, and I assure you a cursory search should dig up a half a dozen or more online reviews of the full-length. Chubbles (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Special Investigations Unit
How do my edits "advertise". This page is not to advertise, it is to inform. There is not a great deal of information published on the SIU that is not published by the SIU. The SIU investigates cases where a member of the public has been seriously injured, killed or sexually asaulted when involved with the police. They are not "looking for business". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 55Sarah55 (talk • contribs)

<-- tagging for archive  --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC) -->

continuation of Wikipedia editor help page discussion
I posted here to avoid clutttering the other. Here is your origonal reply (With regards to a locked "ethnic Macedonian" poae.

''Hi, Thanks for posting here. I think the best thing might be to review Macedonia (terminology) first. After that, I can only point out that in Wikipedia's terms, the primary name Macedonia is deliberately assigned to neither of the modern-day groups, nor yet the ancient people. Rather, editors took great pains, documented at the archived talk pages, to find terms that would be neutral and inoffensive to describe each group.'' Thanks for the quick reply Andrew.

Unfortunately, regardless the intent, arbitrarily assigning FYROM exclusive rights to the term "ethnic Macedonian" at the expense of ethnic Macedonians in Greece is very offensive to most Greeks who consider Macedonia, Athens, Sparta, Thebes, Corinth, and the rest of Greece peninsula part of their ancient Greek cultural identity. (and exactly why there is a naming dispute)  This isn't a case of Athens Georgia. Its a direct neighbour of Greece that is doing so and is showing plenty of signs of irredentism despite prior claims to respect Greek sovereignty and cultural heritage.

I think a locked "ethnic Macedonian" article is a textbook example that the Greek concerns that the term "Macedonia" is being slowly monopolized by a single group is completely valid (and why Greece insists on a geographic qualifier to FYROM to distinguish between the two ethnic Macedonian identities). Greece cannot recognize "ethnic Macedonians" within its borders precisely because monopolizing the name is like trying to tell it to not recognize its own ethnic Macedonians. There is only one ethnic Macedonian identity in Greece... the Greek one. Greece is willing to recognize other groups as long as they don't claim to want recognition as ethnic Athenians, Macedonians, Spartan, or Minoan, etc.

From the Greek perspective there is an ongoing attempt to wipe out part of their cultural identity in an attempt to reach unsustainable band aid contemporary political conveniences. (the literary equivalent of the Taliban blowing up inconvenient Buddhist statues in the hopes of maintaining social stability).

This isn't a case where I'm are asking for special preference or to censor the FYROM viewpoint (far from). All I'm asking is that 2.5 MILLION ethnic Macedonians (Greek ones) not be left completely out in the cold (a request which I believe is entirely consistent with Wikipedia NPOV policy). I can assure you MILLIONS of "ethnic Macedonians" (Greeks) do exist and profoundly wish their right to self-determination be respected. (and I would also note there are more Greek Macedonians in than their are in FYROM “Macedonians”)

http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/ http://www.macedonia.info/ http://www.hyper.gr/ems/ etc...

To Greeks the current situation is roughly analogous to the citizens of the Former Republic of Macedonia deciding to call themselves "ethnic Athenians"... then subsequently claiming exclusive ancient Athenian ancestry (and of course later territory)... without even being able to read Greek!!!

Or for another analogy I recently read.

Picture Quebec separating out from Canada and calling themselves "ethnic New Yorkers"... then claiming that George Washington was French and the whole eastern seaboard of the US is occupied territory. Imagine then telling Americans that New Yorkers are no longer "ethnic New Yorkers" because the original New Yorkers died a long time ago and that "ethnic New Yorkers" from Quebec are now the "real" ones and deserve exclusive rights to Wikipedia articles labeled "ethnic New Yorkers". (without even being able to read a single English book!!!)

This exactly is what the current "ethnic Macedonian" article is saying to me. Its very distressing to say the least but far more importantly I believe it is historical incorrect and highly questionable morally. (I'll refrain from the attempted genocide hyperbole ) This name issue isn't remotely about only the name as some in the media have simplistically made it out to be. Nor it is about race. (Which genes define race after all?) What its really about is the symbols that help maintain cultural identity. (which includes the name of the group, language and other cultural artifacts). After Yugoslavia's violent breakup (over similar type ethnic issues), Greeks feel FYROM is looking to create a national narrative going back to the time of Alexander the Great)... thus later claim the northern region of Greece used to formally be theirs. There is no other plausible reason for them to choose that specific name for themselves.

However, if you carefully listen to half of them they can't make up their mind if their Slavic, Bulgarian, Yugoslavian, or related to Alexander. Who is this possible if they really believed they were Macedonian? Why is it we do not get this identity confusion among Greeks? Kiro Gligorov, Fyrom's first President, stated in Foreign Information Service Daily Report on February 26, 1992) "We are Slavs who came to this area in the sixth century (AD)... we are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians."

Now compare that statement to this recent image of a very large protest against Greece in Australia where Greek flags with Nazi emblems and banners saying "Solun will be the capital of Macedonia again" were displayed. (Referencing is "Thesaloniki"... the capital of Macedonia Greece) http://history-of-macedonia.com/wordpress/category/fyrom-news/ While Greeks are reluctantly willing to compromise with a qualifier name for the sake of peace, they currently feel terms like "ethnic Macedonians" or straight "Macedonia" to describe only FYROM citizens monopolizes the Greek Macedonian name and disrespects the ancient ethnic Greek Macedonian cultural heritage. Locking away a Wikipedia article on "ethnic Macedonian" certainly doesn't help sooth tensions.

Although the motives behind an article labeled FYROM citizens "ethnic Macedonian" may be well intended... in practice pages like that

A. Show great insensitivity and infuriate millions of Greek Macedonians by relegating them to something less than Macedonians.

B. Eggs on FYROM citizens into act of irredentism and anti-Greek sentiment as inevitably it is leading to them trying to completely monopolize the Macedonian identity. Doing do is slowly encouraging them to view Greece is an occupying power in its own territory. After over a decade of mostly indifference to Greek concerns (or the mob reducing them to petty and childish complaints over solely the name), there is now a mountain of evidence (and growing) to back up Greece's initial claims that it would lead to irredentist claims against Greece.

http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews+articleid_2408556&title=NGO_Condemns_EU_NATO.html
 * Just yesterday the "World Macedonian Congress" called the Secretary General of Nato "racist and fascist" for simply suggesting they should compromise with Greece over the name.

http://iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/27/europe/EU-GEN-Macedonia-Death-Threats.php
 * Recent death threats to moderate citizens in FYROM that wish to compromise with Greece over joint custody of the name.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.Res.300:
 * Last year the US Senate finally passed a resolution condemning FYROM for "hostile activities and propaganda" against Greece. (which have only been mounting)

This is just touching the surface. There are literally thousands of incidents and hate directed at Greeks is now nearly universal among FYROM citizens. Visit any FYROM Internet forum or the perpetually under attack Alexander the Great Wikipedia page to hear the vitriol directed at Greeks (and highly provocative (unfounded) claims of occupation, genocide, and revisionist history) http://faq.macedonia.org/history/

Greece has been leveled by northern neighbors four times in the last hundred years (the Balkan War, WW1, WW2 and the Greek communist civil war backed by Tito. This has lead to the murder of many innocent Greeks and the justification of the invaders is always that they are the "real" owners of the land and culture... including the Nazis who claimed to be the descendants of ancient Greeks (even though they too couldn't read even a single Greek book). While (mostly to indifference) some nations have chosen to go with the constitutional name of Republic of Macedonia (as opposed to their offical UN name of FYROM which FYROM [unauthentically] agreed to stick to for external use until an agree was reached).... every nation on earth still agrees to adhere to the outcome of the US/UN mediated naming talks. Even things like the official name for the Macedonian language are on the table. as there was already an existing Greek Macedonian dialect Greece that preceded it. (both ancient and modern) Because of the large shadow cast by ancient Macedon and relative insignificance of the current Greek state, there is a common misconception that there is a empty void between ancient Macedon and modern Greek Macedonians. If you review the articles on Macedonia_(region) you'll see that there was a Greek speaking Macedonian identity thousands of years after the ancient Macedon period as the Eastern Roman (based in Greece) evolved into Byzantium There was even a long dynasty of hybrid Greek-Aremenian Macedonian_dynasty Kings based in Thrace. And even after the independence of the modern Greek a strong regional Greek Macedonian culture was still present and metastasized into a large part of the tapestry that makes up the Greek nation (for the first time since Alexander united Greece).

Forgot my obvious biased views here. Look at your own knowledge of history and ask yourself did Alexander (trigger for the Hellenistic age) appear to see himself as Greek... or as someone from FYROM who doesn't even have the respect for Alexander's legacy to learn to read a single word of the Greek he treasured? Was Aristotle a Greek philosopher or a Bulgarian one? Who has best earned the right to call themselves Macedonians after thousands of years of dutifuly preserving much of the ancient Greek language and culture that Macedon spread to the region during the Hellenistic period?

I would offer that while politics ensures there are many narratives to history it does not mean that all claims cultural are equal in merit or that victim and thief are morally equals. A NPOV does not mean FYROMs claim to the Macedonia name should be treated as equal to that of Greece.

After 2004 some nations dropped FYROM for official use (contrary to the previously agreed upon UN provisions to wait for a name resolution), I am sad to say that very inconsiderate decision has made the situation far far worse because it seemingly has confirms every  Greek fear. The way things are currently headed it could very well lead to violence between FYROM and Greek citizens. To avoid this I think both nations require that their ethnic Macedonian identities be acknowledged (with qualifiers) to distinguish between the two distinct identities. I know I personally will NEVER acknowledge an ethnic Macedonian identity other than Greek.... and I will teach my children the same... and I imagine they will do the same to their children... and so on.... until Macedonia is once again fully recognized as Greek (even if it takes hundreds of years to unify Greece yet again)  However, I would be prefer to forgo the nationalistic melodrama by compromising with a qualifier that carefully distinguishes between both groups.

Now that's just touching the surface of how deep the Macedonian name issue runs in Greek veins. Compare that to someone in FYROM (who can't even read books from ancient Macedon or Byzantium Macedonia) having the audacity to claim they are the ONLY "ethnic Macedonian" identity. What claim do they have that Greeks don't have in tenfold? Most of them don't even realize the region they live in wasn't even originally part of Macedon. . What's particularly ridiculous here is an official Ottoman Census in 1893 indicated there was no distinct "ethnic Macedonian" identity present besides the Greek one. (other minorities like Bulgarians and Jews were mentioned though).

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/7504/karpat1978ottomanpopuladb0.jpg

Any how, I appreciate your courteous response here Andrew (and I realize this is not your doing nor is Macedonian history an area of your expertise) however I don't remotely plan to let this matter drop. To most I imagine this must be some meaningless abstract historical argument between tiny squabbling Baltic states but to many in the region attempts to forcibly destroy aspects of their identity is akin to an act of war and their concerns should not be taken lightly.

Thanks for taking the time to read all this and sorry about the very long post but its the only way I know to make you see the very serious nature of my request. My hope is by dealing with sensitive technical issues like names now... these two distinct Macedonian ethnic groups can entirely forgo the violence and ill will between Palestinians and Israelis that both claim the same land. Far better to negotiate over words than to spill blood. All I am asking is don't try and shut out ethnic Macedonians (Greek) from their own rights. Telling them they are anything less than a Macedonian is like telling someone Jewish they aren't "ethnic Jewish" because Moses existed a long time ago.

As a compromise for now is it possible for you to create a distinct "Macedonians (ethnic group) - Greece" page and adding a link to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonian page? (while adding a qualifier Macedonians (ethnic group) - Republic of Macedonia/FYROM?) (And heck maybe links to anyone else in the region that suddenly decides its cool to be Macedonian again. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.72.222 (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh my - a qualifier for a qualifier. Having read all this a couple of times, let me first congratulate you on having the self-awareness of how this might be read by someone less involved. That's rather unusual. Next, let me say that I'm happy to offer my interpretations of how Wikipedia works, even in this context, but that I'm not going to enter the playing field because I don't understand the way that words are being understood by each party. I suspect that the term "ethnic" was used here to mean a homogeneous group within a somewhat different population, and not to imply any quality of heritage. However, it seems to have imparted a different meaning to you. That's not intended to be any sort of judgement, just an observation about how difficult it is to find truly neutral language. I wonder, is there another naming scheme that you can think of that might represent everybody's interests better than the one currently used? Isn't that the crux of this? --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(still me. I just remembered to sign up with an ID I recently created :)

I can see from your most excellent response you are well versed with some of the complexities of language Andrew and how they can lead to all sorts of unpleasantness. As the famous quote goes... words have consequences.

I'd like to address my main issues with using the qualifier "ethnic" (or at least using it for both groups... with yet another qualifier) to describe one set of Macedonians and not another.

A. Calling one Macedonian group "ethnic" exclusively... implicitely delgates all other potental Macedonian identities to "non-ethnic" status. (Breeding both contempt and hostility)

B. There is a currently a different set of rules for one set of self-identifying Macedonians over another. "Greek" Macedonians versus "Bulgarian" Macedonian versus "Ethnic" Macedonians? See the problem? There is no consistency and there clearly a special value to calling someone specifically "ethnic".

C. It can lead to confusion that Macedonians in the other regions have a dual national identity with FYROM. For example a Greek Macedonian.... effectively becomes the same as saying someone of dual FYROM - GREEK descent. (which they most certainly do not associate with FYROM)

D. "Ethnic" itself is too generic a term and not a geographic, cultural, or temporal identifier. To Greeks (and many in FYROM apparently) its like saying "FYRoM citizens are the true ancient Macedonians and Greeks are occupying their lands." This is somewhat akin to Turkey (who now controls formally Greek Constantinople) deciding it is now more fashionable to rename themselves "Greeks" and later claim Athens is occupied territory. Clearly that would be an act of aggression and not a good idea to allow if we want to prevent more Baltic ethnic wars.

Generic qualifiers applied to FYROM Macedonians and not equally to Greek Macedonians is exactly why Greece does not accept terms like "Constitutional Republic of Macedonia", "Republic of Macedonia" or "Macedonian language". There is no geographic or cultural distinguisher to show their are at least two kinds of Macedonian identities. It intrinsically makes Greeks appear as occupiers of their own historical lands. (the province of Macedonia has had mostly Greek speaking people for literally thousands of years)

The current situation has only lead to all sorts of unfounded accusations of Greek oppression of the "large Macedonian minority" in Greece. A party set up in Greece exactly for the purpose to unauthentically claim "oppression", Rainbow_(political_party), received a "whopping" total of 2,955 votes last election) There are also now loud claim of Greek "genocide" against FYROM citizens (which has spurred people like me into action in self-defense).

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=greek+genocide+macedonia&btnG=Search&meta=

Other than communists like that Tito arguing it.... where were all this claims of "genocide" decades ago? Clearly their intent is unauthentic manipulation of public opinion for political ends on the name issue. The people the FYROM government is referencing are actually communists that during the Greek_Civil_War helped in the murder of thousands of Greeks because at the time they identified more with the Yugoslavian Socialist Republic of Macedonia and communist dictatorships than a free Greek state. It's equivalent to arguing that Greeks should also sympathize and compensate Nazis for taking over Greece. (and just another indicter how unauthentic they are being in the quest to find an ethnic identity at the expense of Greeks). They are trying to draw Greece into the same sort of ethnic conflict that destroyed them when they called themselves Yugoslavians.

From the Greek perspective FYROM is ancient unrecovered occupied territory but the vast majority are willing to live in peace with their neighbours as long as they in turn respect our distinct ethnic Macedonian cultural heritage (Greek) and don't try to claim they don't exist. You'll rarely (if ever) hear someone from FYROM admit the existence of ethnic Macedonian Greeks even though the current Prime Minister of Greece Kostas Karamanlisis a Macedonian.

Most Greeks refer to FYROM citizens as either Skopie (ironically their own capital comes from the Greek "watch tower") or slavomacedonians which makes clear ethnic distinctions. Some in FYROM argue they find the term "Slavic" Macedonian offensive but the argument is intellectually dishonest. Their own government is on record calling themselves Slavic on countless occasions.

Besides why should they be offended having the term "Slavic" applied to their ethnic identification... and ethnic Macedonians (Greek) not feel exactly the same being qualified as "Greek Macedonians"? Why should FYROM not compromise over control of the name Macedonians... and Greeks be expected to do so? The reason they don't want to compromise is exactly because their real intent is irredentism. Again... visual proof (and these pictures were from a very recent (large) "Macedonian human rights" parade)

http://history-of-macedonia.com/wordpress/category/fyrom-news/

Most Greeks are willing to compromise but only if both sets of ethnic Macedonian groups are given a qualifier of similar value. For example:


 * geographic - like say Vardar_Macedoniaand Greek Macedonians
 * ethnic - Slavic Macedonians and Greek Macedonians
 * time - maybe New Macedonians (leaving the door open that there was an older Greek Macedonia) Although that one would come with strings attached to keep them from breaking their agreement and backing out later (as they did with the UN brokered agreement that said the FYROM name was supposed to be used for all official use outside of their country)

Anyhow... do you have any suggestions how I might go about correcting this perceived bias of "ethnic Macedonian"? Millions of people read these articles (especially during times of dispute). I really support the standard techniques Wikipedia uses to try and create balanced articles but I also think special circumstances also require special resolutions.

Thanks again for taking to review my concerns that some Wikipedia articles are currently biased against Macedonians (Greeks). And please remember this isn't only me complaining about propaganda and hate-speech being directed at Greeks.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.Res.300: (Note: If the above link doesn't work manually add a colon ":" to end of address bar)

Crossthets (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, my question about a better naming scheme was an attempt to find a path forward, so to be blunt - how would you fix it? I don't think Slavic is going to fly; I think I read somewhere that Slavic can be seen as pejorative. Perhaps Vardar would work, or perhaps that's a terrible insult in some ears too. Another possibility in theory would be to try to re-open the debate from scratch, but in practice that's likely to be seen as an invitation to vandalism, edit-wars, and everything else up to and including plagues of locusts. The best place, I think, to propose a new convention would be at Talk:Macedonia (terminology) - it seems to get pretty good traffic. Good luck, and remember - stay cool when the editing gets hot. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I realize this is taking up a great deal of your time so I'll make this the last post.

The argument they give that "slavic" is a pejorative is bullcrap. There are literally thousands quotes I can pull from prominent FYROM politicians where they call themselves "Slavic". The real problem is FYROM citizens will claim any OFFICIAL qualifier other than "ethnic Macedonian" or "Macedonian" (or some other non-descriptive generic identifier) is an insult to them... which again implicately is an attempt to deny the existence of otherMacedonians or reduce them to "non-ethnic" status.

I still feel that a locked ethnic_Macedonian article (in a naming dispute that is still unresolved and being mediated by the international bodies)... is biased against Macedonians. To get a sense of how I feel about this matter imagine if someone Jewish was told (the most popular target for bigotry) they weren't allowed to utter the words "ethnic Jewish" on Wikipedia because it was now forbidden.

The reason why it matters is because some in FYROM these days are attempting to get Greece to recognize a small "ethnic Macedonian" group (notice their precise words ). What I believe they are specifically trying to do is accuse Greece of "human rights" abuses to manipulate foreign public opinion. The real issue however isn't remotely that that they don't exist or shouldn't be entitled to full rights... but that they are attempting to call themselves by the name of a pre-existing ancient Macedonian identity in Macedonia. How are Macedonians any less "ethnic" Macedonian than ones that claim they maintained a distinct "ethnic" identity when they used to be part of Yugoslavia?

Greek Macedonians are willing to compromise for the "Greek" qualifier... Why can't the people from FYROM settle for the "Slavic" one? From the Macedonian standpoint the only logical explanation is that they are attempting ti eliminate any and all traces of competing Macedonians by monopolizing terms like "ethnic" "native" or any other generic signifiers they can think of. And they already show clear designs on Macedonian territory as well.

The qualifier "ethnic" to me appears like just another unauthentic ploy. (And part of the reason why I am writing all these posts is to have a record that these objectitions were made on Wikipedia.) Based on what you have said so far I gather you are unprepared to take further action (at least at this time). That's OK though. Rational people don't formulate quick opinions on complex issues.... much less based on long diatribes of yet another Wikipedian complaining about the injustice of some article :)

I have only one final request (if you have chance) that may allow me an avenue to push forward. Can you tell me what I need to do to begin a brand new article labeled "Ethnic Macedonian (Greek)" (Or can you set up a blank dummy which I can begin editing immediately?)

Even if someone choses to delete it later down the road... I plan to use it as a springboard to demonstrate there is currently a bias directed against Macedonians and use it to identify the specific individuals forbidding Macedonians from also using the qualifier "ethnic" to describe themselves (like FYROM citizens are currently being allowed). According to some, anyone can call themselves whatever they like like and it is a "human rights" abuse against them if they are not allowed to co-opt the identity from others. It would be very interesting to see what they will argue when they are put in the opposite side of that argument and faced with squashing the Macedonian right to also use "ethnic" Macedonians. (as FYROM also does and claims as a right)

I very much appreaciate the time you have spent responding and listening to my various concerns.

209.161.229.238 (talk) 05:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Just found a tidbit to backup my claim calling that they are unauthentic in claiming calling them "slavic" is a pejorative. (and a ploy solely intended to reduce Macedonians (Greeks) to non-ethnic status)

Pulled from an existing article on Macedonians_(ethnic_group)

"The Macedonians (Macedonian: Македонци, Makedonci) – also referred to as Macedonian Slavs[43] – are a South Slavic people who are primarily associated with the Republic of Macedonia. They speak the Macedonian language, a South Slavic language. About two thirds of all ethnic Macedonians live in the Republic of Macedonia, although there are also communities in a number of other countries."

3 references to "slavic" (in the first paragraph).

209.161.230.57 (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for delayed response - was off-Wiki for a couple of days.
 * I guess I would try to stay away from diagnosing what other people find offensive. I'm sure nobody here set out to offend you, and yet we seem to have managed to do so. In the same vein, your reading of the offensiveness of "Slavic", while well-intentioned, runs the risk of being less than perfect. While I can't prevent you from starting a page, I do strongly recommend that you discuss it first at one of the talk pages we've previously mentioned. I don't imagine you'll get 100% agreement, but you will get a broad sense of where the majority of editors will come out.
 * Good luck! --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for another post Andrew. (after saying the last would be the last :) but just had to mention a few more things to avoid any confusion.

I wasn't remotely offended by anything you said Andrew. If anything you've be extraordinarily polite and well spoken. Where I am offended is that millions of people in Greece that call themselves Macedonian (much like the citizens in FYROM once called themselves both Yugoslavian and a regional "Macedonian" prior to Yugoslavias breakup)... are now being reduced to something less than Macedonian by an article named "ethnic Macedonians" (that only relates to FYROM).

(and again....its not like calling themselves Macedonian is something new)

http://www.greekembassy.org/Embassy/Content/en/Article.aspx?office=1&folder=19&article=23765

Because the term "ethnic" is a generic qualifier that tends to be interpreted as the "default" identity...I believe this is a direct violation of the human rights of 2.5 million Macedonians (in Greece). It's these exact issues why there is a naming dispute. Its like asking 2.5 million Macedonians... to give up their cultural identity. Greece makes up an extremely small area of the earths landmass. From the Greek perspective once culturally slavic people from FYROM take half of Greece (who can't read a word of Greek from ancient Macedon) ... they will then claim they are "ethnic Athenians"... and then "ethnic Spartans"... and that will be the end of Greek speaking people and culture after 4000 years.

Any how... I take it by your last response I already have the ability to create a new article. I will take your advice and give the talk page you mention a try first.

Thank-you so much for the time you have graciously spent with me. 209.161.239.31 (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope it was helpful. To be blunt, I didn't think I had insulted you; I was hoping to warn you against believing you can forecast how other people might react to your describing them. For example, I could call you "erudite" and think it was a compliment; you might be a sports fiend and think I was suggesting you spend all your time sitting around reading instead of playng sports, and hence be insulted. Many smart people have spent many hours here, making those mistakes and then trying to fix them. It would be much much better to ask questions first and form opinions later. Please consider this carefully! Best, --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Andrew,

back again. If you don't have time to handle this feel free to pass me on to another admin. (I just thought I would try here first since you already know my general beef.)

I tried working with the ethnic Macedonia talk page (and a few others) despite feeling there was a strong anti-ethnic Greek Macedonian bias present (as previously discussed). It (unsurprisingly) has only lead to a situation where all sort of edits went missing by mostly a user named Balkanfever. I tried to discuss the issues on his talk page but instead of dealing with them he decided to make some sort of backchannel request to some admin that went on to accuse me of "trolling".

I honestly believe at this point the admin in question [User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.] is biased because rather than trying to gather facts before making accusations and discuss my POV....he was extremely rude and unprofessional to me by stating.....

Every sane person with normal adult intelligence can see that your allegations against B.F. are nonsensical. If you can't see that yourself, it's probably no use me trying to explain it to you. I will simply block you if you continue with this topic, for being either a malicious troll or too clueless for rational discussion." on my user talk page (he replied on user talk for IP 209.161.227.67)

Ok. I am new here and have ruffled some feathers with my strong views on a touchy subject(as you warned me :). However... this newness and ruffled feathers does not necessarily mean I am in the wrong. Is this admin's name calling and threats to ban me without reviewing my concerns considered ethical behavior by an admin at Wikipedia? (I also noticed the same admin removed a section where inquiring why there is no ethnic Greek Macedonian section.... hardly a coincidence I would think)

And if this is indeed an abuse of power by said admin....is there further action I can take against him/her? The last thing I want is an inside buddy system gaming Wikipedia to keep me from making factual edits to Wikipedia articles.

Thanks again for any help. 18:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

btw- the rude admin in question seems to have cleaned up his page where I tried to discuss the matter with him. Here is a link to the history page though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=227239028&oldid=227233893 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.227.67 (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello again. I should start by saying I'm not an admin. Sometimes I try to help out at requests for assistance, but that's all.
 * I have a couple of suggestions. First, use your username consistently. Edits from users who are not logged in can appear to be less serious and less committed to Wikipedia's aims. They're also harder to keep track of, since your IP varies from session to session. Second, don't worry about other people's user pages when you could be focused on improving articles. The rules are different and somewhat more relaxed. You have made yourself look like you're picking a fight with BalkanFever. That apparent behaviour is also called trolling. Third, concentrate on making some constructive suggestions. Your contributions to Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group) were not constructive; you called a whole bunch of people a whole bunch of nasty names. Don't do that.
 * --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I will try to remember to log in from now on. As for your point I was trying to pick a fight... balkanfever is the one that mass removing my edits. I tried to have a discussion about it with him on his talk page (he basically ignored me)... at which time I noticed on his user page he had a great deal of anti-Greek Macedonian sentiment (and I still stick by that claim) When I asked him to remove a specific offensive link (that lead to an external page showing half of Greece under FYROM contro)... instead he called up an admin buddy to harass me with claims of "trolling". (oh irony of ironies)

But to be fair... can you please point me where specifically you think I called "a whole bunch of people a whole bunch of nasty names"? The only time I can recall reacted with any hostility to anyone was when accused of "trolling" out of the blue (and I accused them of bias back)... and someone called me a "racist" for stating the that there are 2.5 ethnic-Greek Macedonians (which I also responded in like for denying their existence). Again... do these 2.5 million Macedonians no longer exist? Does that seem consistent with their human rights?

And getting back to the original query... is it considered professional for a Wikipedia admin to name call and threaten banning users without even reviewing the other POV? And if not...where would I register a complaint?

Thanks again Andrew. (I'd read the reply but won't bother you again as I've taken up enough of your time) I just wish to add... this isn't a minor matter here. If Macedonians are denied their own recognition... this very issue could very well lead to the next war in the Baltics. Crossthets (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This contribution struck me as rather hostile, for example.
 * It might be appropriate for an admin, or any other editor, to "threaten banning users ..." if the user had indulged in behaviour that might merit a ban. We do know that your posts at Balkanfever's talk are documented and could be considered trolling. By all means express your point of view on a talk page, but do it constructively without attacking anybody else.
 * If you want to challenge the admin's approach then WP:AN/I might be a place to go, but I think you'll get short shrift without building up a history of positive and collaborative contributions. Perhaps you'll find some like-minded editors at some of the Greek Macedonian pages? Good luck, --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If you check the contribution you mention as hostile... just prior some anon user had out of the blue said to me "Pure Greek racism at it's best." and went on a diatribe how I was oppressing slavic macedonians" by asking why Macedonians aren't also called ethnic? (as well as making all sorts of factually inaccurate claims.) I have no regrets. They deserved it. --Crossthets (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Be that as it may, it didn't help to improve the encyclopaedia. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Egor Lavrov
Sorry, I didn't know the rules very well, I didn't want to be aggressive or to violate any rules. I thought that changes made to the article is a vandalism, this is why I reverted everything to the original version. A couple of times they just added offensive words, once deleted the entire content. I know Egor Lavrov personally and I used to work with him a couple of years ago. [ssr] says that it's a lie that Egor Lavrov is a son of the current Minister of Foreign affairs, but it is not mentioned anywhere in the article, his father's name is Sergey Lavrov, but he have nothing to do with the Minister and Sergey Lavrov's name is not linked to the wiki page about the Minister. In the "references" part of the page I've listed all the links that I found to confirm every fact found on the page. Article about Egor Lavrov gets more attention and more attempts to vandalize it every time Egor Lavrov launches a new project in the Internet, just a week before new wave of vandals he came up with a new project called "tattoolizator" that was mentioned by engadget and got a lot of attention. Egor Lavrov is running a popular blog describing his lifestyle in an eccentric way, so this is one of the reasons many people feel jealous and trying to harm his reputation. I provided links to very reputable sources as US News & World Report and others. Thank you! Registrator1 (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Solar System
I noticed your edit, and would like your contribution to the talk page on Talk:Solar_System. -HarryAlffa (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking, but I was just disambiguating the ambiguous billion to 1e9, as I recall, so I have no expertise to contribute. Good luck, --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Notice of merger proposal
Hi! I'm suggesting a merger for New Mexico's 3rd congressional district election, 2008, an article you worked on. Flatterworld (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A Wedding
Thanks for your help on A Wedding's wikipedia entry. The previous version was an absolute disaster. My friend and I based the new version on the La Boheme article. What do you think of the new page? KRay 02:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Kemikal
Songs are not eligible for speedy deletion under the A7 criteria, which indicates a valid candidate as "[a]n article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content". Non-notable items like songs that do not meet the A7 criteria must be prodded, but only after a good faith effort in researching notability in sources such as Billboard.com, AMG, or Polyhex. Mutliple non-trivial reviews in reliable sources may also substitute a successful charting history. Cheers and happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Shock
Circulatory and psychological shock are both medical conditions, so "shock (medical)" can refer to either, and having "shock (medical)" redirect to "shock (circulatory)" misleadingly suggests that that is the only type of shock that is a medical condition. That's why I redirected "shock (medical)" to the disambiguation page "shock". There are several hundred links to "shock (medical)", and I both didn't have the time and don't have the inclination to go through all of them checking which type of shock is meant and fixing all those links. Anyone clicking on one of those links will be taken to the disambiguation page, from which he or she should be able to figure out what type of shock is meant. If you want, feel free (I even encourage you to do so) to go through the links to "shock (medical)", fixing them so that they point to the type of shock meant, whether circulatory or psychological. Happy editing. :) —Lowellian (reply) 01:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Twing
I took too long getting back to the guy I guess. I'd rather see it go through AfD, but he's got sources. I'll comb through carefully, but it looks like it would (barely) meet WP:WEB. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

First: Process issue: It wasn't a matter of you personally taking too long to get back to me. I'm really trying to follow the rules and go through the right process. You'd expressed you were busy and had some personal issues, which was perfectly fine. That happens. No big deal. But then you - or someone - had deleted part of our conversation on your talk page, and you'd gotten back to others afterward. So I'd assumed you'd just moved on. I didn't want to be a pest, so I went to the person listed on my Talk page as mentor; still trying to follow what appeared to be a proper process. I waited a couple of weeks, and nothing. So I went for the Be Bold policy figuring either "no problem" or someone would zap it and I could go through AfD properly and with appropriate timing.

Phew... THAT being said, I think I've solved the notability problems. There's several external sources, (mainstream news), that refer to the company, etc. I believe the article maintains a neutral point of view though, (full disclosure, which I think I've mentioned), I do work there. In every Wikipedia article I've edited I've tried to keep it neutral and factual, regardless of my point of view. As well, I believe I've done a much better job in this article in terms of both references and notability then many similar articles. (Yes, I realize a potential answer to that is for me to flag other stuff for deletion that doesn't measure up. Still, I think I have a highly defensible position in terms of reliable, neutral third party references as compared to a variety of others and therefore meet or exceed standards.)

Thanks for re-review. Scottwrites (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Prod removal
I've removed the prod because I've reviewed the references, and they seem sufficient enough, with the ABC New insterview, and now a PC Magazine article (along with those other sources which appear reliable and non-trivial). I strongly encourage you to pursue an AfD nomination if you disagree in any way. Cheers and happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The 1832 Reform Act
Hello AndrewHowse,

You appear to have decided the concerns I have over an article on the 1832 Reform Act have been "Resolved" - well not to my mind.

Beneath the green resolved tick I have posted my objections to that tick being there - maybe you would be getting an automatic alert to view it but in case not - here be that which I have writ:-

NO IT HAS NOT BEEN RESOLVED

- Epicadam has simply said that there is nowt that can be done.

This line

"The Act also specifically disenfranchised women, sparking the British suffrage movement."

is simply wrong - the women's suffrage movement began in the 1860s it wasn't sparked in 1832. You can't easily give a citation for something that shouldn't be in an article in the article. But if anyone wishes for citation for why the last five word of that article not to be there here it is:-

".....the agitation for women's suffrage is usually dated from John Stuart Mill's 1865 campaign to be elected to parliament, although the subject had been discussed much earlier."

This comes from Votes for Women. By June Purvis, Sandra Stanley Holton. Contributor June Purvis, Sandra Stanley Holton Published by Routledge, 2000. (As regards discussion - yes it had taken place much earlier - before the Reform Act - and I can provide citations for that too - indeed the article does.)

Wrong the statement maybe but it has become gospel on Wikipedia thanks to one individual - and this - Editor assistance/Request - page doesn't seem much help at all.

I certainly now have my doubts as to the reliability of Wikipedia - which is a pity.

mise le meas

Ned of the Hills (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You advised on WP:EAR "You need to find a source to support your assertion that women were unable to vote before the passage of the 1832 Act."

I have responded by writing on the WP:EAR page:-

Where in the world before 1832 did women have the vote? Is a source truly required? But if a source is needed here is one: A Treatise on the Law and Practice of Elections by Arthur Male published in 1820. - "Women cannot vote in elections" Page 165 "The right of voting at elections for members of parliament, constitutes the much admired and envied liberty of an Englishman. Women, infants, idiots and madmen are absolutely disqualified from the exercise of this privilege."Page 242. This book can be accessed on line using Google Book Search which, indeed, is how I discovered it. Not everything in print however is the truth - though I've no doubt the statements I've quoted are correct. I've discovered a couple of errors on Wikipedia that quote a source - I've viewed documents held in the National Archives in Kew, however,that prove them to be false. These errors I've let pass because they are minor and tend to be colourful rather than a distortion of history.

As you have not responded to my response I place it here as well in case your attention has not been drawn to it.

You also advised:- "....this isn't the right forum for that debate; it should be at Talk:Reform Act 1832. ...."

I presume by this you are instructing me to delete the line in question - then give my sources on the discussion page. And I'm also presuming the line will be re-instated. What then? You say that "Chrissieboy could and would be sanctioned if s/he were to reinsert it." Would this happen automatically? Or do I have to bring the issue to WP:EAR again?

mise le meas

Ned of the Hills (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw it. My previous suggestion stands, and I didn't see much value in repeating myself. If you didn't find it helpful the first time, then I wasn't hopeful that it would be any better received the second time. But, since you raised the matter here, I've responded at WP:EAR. I'm not instructing you to do anything; I simply offer a suggestion for your consideration. There's no need to remove that which has already been written, but editors who are active at a particular article probably won't be watching WP:EAR and hence won't see your sources there. As to what Chrissieboy would or would not do, I have no idea. If s/he made edits that conflicted with a source then we could decide how to address that. I'll add the page to my watchlist and follow the action. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In the seventeen days since you gave me the above advice on the 1832 Reform Act's discussion page I think I have supplied enough evidence to show that the line:- The Act also explicitly disenfranchised women, sparking the British suffrage movement. should be deleted.

Did you predict my doing so would see to it being removed by others? Well others have not done so.

All that has changed has been the insertion of the words - it has been argued - later on in the article put there by Chrissieboy - placed in the middle of what is actually a sentence taken from another book which I don't think is really kosher.

Presumably the words - it has been argued - have been inserted in response to the evidence I've put forward up but its a far from being an adequate response. However, I suppose it indicates Chrissieboy now entertains some doubts.

Tomorrow I intend to delete the sentence. It's a pound to a penny that Chrissieboy will re-insert it.

Well it was placed back but its been off now at least three days. I think this section can now be cleared. I hope I'm not speaking too soon!

Ned of the Hills (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

re: Ed Delahanty and List of Major League Baseball home run records
I have to say that I am embarrassed that I never caught this exclusion. Kudos for the catch! LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

October Baseball WikiProject Newsletter
--  jj137   ( talk )  23:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Bigfoot: The Unforgettable Encounter
Thanks for the IMDB fix. I gave up after four or five tries. What a mess the thing is, eh? A "family movie" with sexual content? What!? I guess it will take time. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  03:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Dloh  cierekim  13:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering the number of nonsense edits, vandalism edits, and just plain untruths added by the article creator, it sure deserved the speedy deletion tag.  Dloh  cierekim  13:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Scarket Fade
--Cvgoldensun@yahoo.com 13:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Dear AndrewHowse,

You will be able to note that I have responded to your comment that Scarlet Fade isn't notable. I belive they are very notable, as you will find at my response [here]. --Cvgoldensun@yahoo.com 13:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvgoldensun (talk • contribs)

Shannon Marie
Why did you delete my discussion page? -Avrilrox63 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avrilrox63 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't, actually. I nominated Shannon Marie Dickey for nomination, since the first part didn't show any notability for the subject and the rest of it was a copy of the Miley Cyrus page. An admin, TexasAndroid, then agreed with my suggestion and deleted it along with the other pages that redirected to it. Those redirects were created when you moved the page, so Texas Android just followed that chain backwards. Please let me know if you have other questions. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks! That was actually really helpful! Wikipedia is one of my fave sites, but I'm new to the editing. The Miley thing was only for the codes and stuff and I wasn't even done yet. I wish I could call my page Shannon Marie, but everytime I do that it won't let me. What do I do? (Shannon Marie (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC))


 * Until there's some reason to think that the topic is notable, best to do nothing. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Topic is notable? What does that mean. Sorry, I want to be a media editor one day but I'm kinda new to editing Wikipedia.


 * Do you have any tips on how I can make my page and other pages better?''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avrilrox63 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Notability has a particular meaning in Wikipedia; please read WP:Notability to learn more. In essence it sets the standard, or hurdle, for what topics are worthy of their own page. More good basics are at WP:5 pillars. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What? What are you talking about? Stop using big words and stuff. Why does everyone on Wikipedia talk like an college professor or something like that? I'm 13! Help me out! Gosh, it's just the disscussion page. No need to be all "techy". Thank you! (Shannon Marie (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC))

I keep getting these things saying I have a new message from you. Where is it? (Shannon Marie (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC))
 * There's no new message. It's just a template on your talk that you can remove once you read the last message. Edit your own talk and remove the Talkback code. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! By the way, have you ever editied the page for David Archuleta's debut album? I think it needs some serious work and I'm helping out, can you help too? Thanks! (Shannon Marie (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

Hima-Sella
Good Afternoon Andrew,

Can you please tell me how the Hima-Sella Page is Spam?

Please view pages such as Siemens, Yokogawa, ABB Group, Honeywell etc.

The list of articles refering to a specific company on Wikipedia is endless. Surely in that case they are all to be classed as spam too?

If people wish to know about that specific company how would you suggest this be added onto Wikipedia?

Regards

Anthony —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.236.130 (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's written in a promotional tone; there's no indication of why the company is notable; there are no independent references. You might find it helpful to read WP:5 Pillars and also WP:CORP which explains notability requirements for companies. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What would you consider to be notability? Hima-Sella has supplied safety, control and automation systems to oil,gas,nuclear, transport, steel industries accross the globe, however including this would be seen as 'promotional' by at least one member of wikipedia, who would then take offense and delete the article.

I appologise if my style of writing is 'promotional' however, surely any page on wikipedia based around a company, including the companies pages listed in my last message which have been on the site for months, will be seen as promotional by someone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.117.103.18 (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Notability has been defined here; it's at WP:CORP. If Hima-Sella meets the standard for non-trivial independent coverage, then you should add that to the page. If it doesn't, then we'll wait until such time as it does and then restart the page. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I have included some independant news items from a variety of online publications and magazines which imediatly popped to mind. I shall add any further relevant publications as I get chance. Hopefully this will establish sufficient notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.117.103.18 (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As of now, I don't think that meets the standard. Every one of them is self-published or closely based on press releases. There's no independent non-trivial coverage there. And such might well not exist; it doesn't mean that the company isn't a tremendous company, only that there isn't yet the basis for an encyclopaedic article. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Gold Robot Records
Andrew, you tagged a page for notability concerns that I created while filling out a discography for Meanest Man Contest. The label page for Gold robot records includes similar information as the other labels, such as Plug Research. Any idea of what's needed to expand on a page where most information is based on the official website of the label. I checked out the notability guidelines and didn't find any glaring in reference to archiving the work of a label. Thanks in advance for any help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhinoceros2 (talk • contribs) 11.50 14 October 2008


 * Well, the part about multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources is pretty central, and is missing from the Gold robot records page. That was what caused me concern. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'll see if I can dig up a label profile from an independent source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhinoceros2 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

King of Nepal
Hello! I've responded to your comment. Surtsicna (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Queen Victoria might not be the best example, since "former" is pretty well implicit in "dead". Well, we don't call her "Dead Queen of the United Kingdom" either, do we? Surtsicna (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Image Noticeboard
Hi, is there anything like an image notceboard? if so can you lead me there? thanks. 17:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fefogomez (talk • contribs)


 * Yup, was looking for one. See further post at WP:EAR. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

From Movieacting
Movieacting (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)movieactingMovieacting (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Andrew

Many thanks for your collaboration on the Prudence Milinery page we really appreciate it all the best

faerielitez
heya thnx for helping me with my page on Will and the people xx and i'm confused why they're deleting it what does notability even mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faerielitez (talk • contribs) 13.22 30 October 2008


 * Hi, Not every band is eligible to be included here. The standard is set out at WP:BAND, and, if you can, it would be good to demonstrate that some part of it is met by that band. If not, then we'll have towait until the band does meet the standard and then we can bring the page back. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

A problem Hugo Lake may not have ever had before...
I don't think that overpopulation of bass guitars in Hugo Lake will ever become an issue :) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Jamie Cruckishank article
I saw your message regarding the article being speedily deleted. She is one of Canada's rising bobsledders in the brakeperson position. Her article had already been deleted even before I had a chance to respond. If she wins a medal at the upcoming world championships in the United States, I will created her article again and she will have met notability for her competition in athletic competitions outside the Winter Olympics. This will be known in February. Chris (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoever wrote the cricketer article should have dabed it between them and the bobsledder. That would have saved a headache on this. Thanks. Chris (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention in my earlier message, but thanks for undeleting the bobsledder. Chris (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * From the FIBT website ], she finished 13th in the two-woman bobsleigh event at the 2006 Winter Olympics in Turin. This meets the notability requrement as far as I am concerned. Chris (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank for restoring this article. I really appreciate it. Chris (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. Chris (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Pollina
I have removed the prod tag from Anthony Pollina, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks!

I see you placed a CSD on this page, which another editor converted to a Prod. I think there's enough about him to justify AfD rather than Prod. While he's a failed candidate, he's been running for office for 24 years now, and I found some NY Times coverage of a past campaign. Since you placed the AfD, thought it best to keep you informed. MadScot (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Telereal
Hi Andrew, thanks so much for your advice earlier. Do you think there is anything I can do in terms of editing the text to remove the conflict of interest and cite/references. We are a private investment company so there is no historic literature about our company. Thanks once again, I really do appreciate your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michellemarketing (talk • contribs) 16:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Michelle. You might like to look at WP:NOTABLE and WP:CORP if you haven't already done so; they set out the criteria for inclusion that would apply in this case. I'm not sure if you'll find anything either; it might just be that the firm has too low a profile to be included here. Feel free to ask questions! --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Gray Article
Hi there, I wrote an article on musician "Daniel Gray" yesterday which was tagged to be "speedily deleted." Unfortunately the article was deleted before I could attempt to assert the notability of the subject. I would like to make an attempt to assert the notability, if possible, by providing reliable independent media exposure as well as information regarding major festivals Daniel Gray has participated in and notable bands he has played with. If deemed acceptable I would certainly include this information in the article on Daniel Gray. Thank you! Midnightrambler21 (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The independent reliable coverage would be pretty important! It's usually best to include the sources upfront, otherwise it's at great risk of being deleted. User:Discospinster was the deleting admin and would likely restore the page to your userspace on request. --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help!

Midnightrambler21 (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Musician "John Babcock"
The photo is stored on my computer. I am John Babcock's son, also noted in his article. I created his article from all the available resources in his archived history. He has achieved lots of great things in many locations. I don't think there should be any conflict of interest due to his rightful following and at least his notable fame. If the photo name is to be changed, I could do that if its really necessary. I am somewhat new to creating wikipedia pages and this is my first big article. MegaMacX (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You would be well served by adding some references from reliable sources. --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

2MMM page and Tony Martin
Hi there. I saw that you had unlinked Tony Martin on the 2MMM page as the link took users to a disambiguation page for people by the name of Tony Martin. I have re-added the link but to the correct Tony Martin page. Your thoughts? Jonesy (talk) 07:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Cheers. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Givingtruth
Hi Andrew, I saw that my posting for the Food and Society program was deleted, I have two questions. If I were to try and re-create the posting for this Program with edits (less advertising) would it get deleted? Also if you could suggest on how to use less blatant advertising I would appreciate it, I imagine removing all the external links within the body would be a good place to start. Also, in the future would there be more time to edit your comments than just 6 hours... . Thanks. I'd appreciate any comments and advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by givingtruth (talk • contribs) 03:57 04 December 2008


 * Hi there, I think the root of the problem is that you didn't establish notability - you didn't explain and show why the topic was worthy of inclusion. If there are multiple sources of non-trivial coverage, perhaps in newspapers or other reliable sources, then you need to reference them and establish notability. If not, then you don't have a strong case for including the topic. Speedy deletion can be speedy; it's used in clear-cut cases. If you feel strongly then you can go to deletion review, but that can get a bit tricky if you're not familiar with the lingo. Finally, if you wish, you can ask the admin who deleted the page to put a copy into your user pace; User:DGG is a very reasonable chap and I'm sure he'd help you out if he could. --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

LNER Peppercorn A1
Hi. You recently expressed an opinion at Talk:LNER Peppercorn Class A1, which I have been loosely referring to in the dispute that has run on and on (nobody has yet turned up following an Rfc request). It is now (maybe prematurely given the Rfc is only a few days old?) listed as a mediation request. If your could review the further arguments made on the talk page and perhaps give further comment/clarification, that would be helpful. (I am also cross posting this to User:MilborneOne) MickMacNee (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)