User talk:Arms & Hearts/Archive 3

Please comment on Talk:Frederick "Rick" Barton
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Frederick "Rick" Barton. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Reactions to Occupy Wall Street
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Reactions to Occupy Wall Street. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Taipei
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Taipei. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

re My RfD closures
Sorry for taking a while to get back to you - I've got internet connection troubles currently.

Looking at the two discussions you mention again, re: Template:Anchor for redirect - "it does no harm and can be helpful" is a good reason not to delete a redirect, so rebutting the nominator's reason for deletion, but can easily see this going either way between keep and no consensus.

As for Michel Aoun/Archive1, Rossami's comment explains the historical need for the redirect and the follow-up by the anon basically says that the need is still current. The nominator's reason is "there is no need for this", so I view the comments saying "there actually is a need for this" as a full rebuttal, especially as the long-standing precedent at RfD is we keep almost all apparently pointless redirects if they're not doing any harm. I see your point about no consensus though.

I hope this explains my actions a bit more, and I'm always happy to clarify! Thryduulf (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding; and yeah, that all makes sense. I think though, and I don't really know why I didn't say this the other day, that maybe the right move for both would've been relisting: However, if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist it, to solicit further discussion to determine consensus. In these cases both only had two participants and were devoid of policy-based arguments. What do you think? – hysteria18 (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately rfd is poorly patronised and experience shows that relisting often doesn't bring any further comments and I really don't like closing a relisted discussion (as anything) that hasn't attracted any more discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

New Message
--Michael Greiner 23:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

HELP - Why did you nominate my article for speedy deletion!
Why was my article LG ICT Network deleted!!! did you read it? Did anyone care to read? How can it be a non relevant web content? It is 1. a Government project of the Government of South Africa 2. a cooperation project with own full time staff 3. is heavly funded and supported by the german government development aid agency GIZ 4. does organize real time workshop and events for all south african municipalities.

I do not understand how, without any discussion, the article was deleted. Istvanst (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Muammar Gaddafi
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Muammar Gaddafi. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for A Guide to the New Ruins of Great Britain
Yngvadottir (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Lewes Road at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Academic Journals Database
Hi , I can send you a thousand and one links to academic journals, indicating on their official websites that they are listed in the Academic Journals Database, so can you please explain to me how else I can prove the notability of the subject other than citing and linking some of those academic journals? Does being a bibliographic database which makes it an educational or knowledge resource not make the subject important enough to beat criterion A7? Please see citation 6. And how come the subject is important enough to be listed in the List of academic databases and search engines, but less important to deserve its own article like ATLA Religion Database, Current Index to Statistics and JournalSeek do? Even if you do not agree with me, I think you should have allowed a discussion instead of redirecting the article again; I hope you read my comment on the talk page before redirecting. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In my view being a bibliographic database doesn't make a topic automatically exempt from CSD A7. If it were, for instance, the world's biggest or the world's oldest such database, or if it clearly met the general notability guideline, then A7 wouldn't be applicable. I haven't been involved in editing List of academic databases and search engines, so I don't feel qualified to comment on what should or shouldn't be part of it. Finally, remember that redirecting one page to another isn't an irreversible change (nothing on Wikipedia is). If you're not swayed by my arguments and/or by reviewing the relevant policies, feel free to put the article back in place. (Also feel free to get back to me with any questions or concerns.) Thanks! – hysteria18 (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that "being a bibliographic database doesn't make a topic automatically exempt from CSD A7", but like I pointed out in my earlier talk, the subject isn't just any bibliographic database but one that is listed on the website of many academical journals as being one of their indexing channels. I am putting the article back in place with an RFC on its talk page; please, your comment there will be appreciated. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Touré
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Touré. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anesthesiologist Assistant
Hi, answering your question. "i don't understand the confusion over the afc"

The article cannot be created from the AfC process because the redirect page exists.

The AfC creation script fails with a system error.

I could create the page manually, but that is not recommended as it loses the edit-history of the page.

I agree with you, the redirect is a useful one, and the redirect is preserved >> here << Let me know if you would suggest:
 * (1) manual page creation by pasting over the redirect, here --> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anesthesiologist_Assistant&redirect=no
 * ... or ...


 * (2) deletion of the page first, so I can move it over with the AfC reviewing script.

Many thanks, Mediation4u (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC) editing is fun
 * Since you posted this message another user's redirected the page to Anesthesiologist assistant, which was formerly at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anesthesiologist Assistant, which I think resolves the issue. (In future, if a page needs to be deleted in order for a move to take place, you should use db-move rather than prod.) – hysteria18 (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. Thanks for the advice.    Mediation4u (talk) 08:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Christian Connection (website)
I've started a discussion on this article. Bearian (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, I've replied. – hysteria18 (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

NWA Southern Women's Championship (Georgia Version) Reply
The answer to your question, yes it is it was primary defended in the georgia region, there is also another version of this championship its called "NWA Southern Women's Championship (Florida Version)". (Davazchick) 05:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I guess that clears things up. – hysteria18 (talk) 08:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Lewes Road
I wanted to ask whether you wished to re-engage on your DYK nomination—there has been a response to your last comment which I believe clarifies what was being looked for. If you don't, then the nomination should be closed, but I thought it was important that you take another look. Please let me know your preference. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks and sorry for not clearing this up sooner – I was sort of hoping someone else might propose an alternative hook, but seeing as no one else has, closing the nomination seems like the best course of action. – hysteria18 (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised you were hoping, though I didn't think of that possibility myself. I can't think of an alternative hook myself, so I'll put an "X" on it. If I do subsequently think of something, I'll let you know. (No need to leave me additional talkbacks; I'll keep you on my watchlist until the nomination goes through final processing.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks again. – hysteria18 (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Dulcita Lieggi
I dont really know on what grounds you placed Dulcita Lieggi up for possible deletion. She will represent the Dominican Republic in the worlds biggest beauty pageant in December, which in my opinion gives her instant notability. Also Wikipedia has thousands of "pageant girl" articles where the national win was far less controversial. Her controversial win after the original winner was dethroned is also giving her notability. I would suggest that you place her up for AfD instead.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have now removed the PROD, if you still feel that the article should be deleted place it up for an AfD discussion instead. Representing your country in a major international pageant is notable. Also her national pageant is of major importance in the Dominician Republic.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the swift response and for your contributions generally. From my understanding of the relevant notability guidelines, I don't think participating in a major international pageant is an automatic guarantee of notability. However, Ms. Lieggi still might meet the general notability guideline, which says a topic's notable if it's received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Do you think she meets that guideline? – hysteria18 (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would support you placing the article up for AfD, that way we can get input from many users and reach some consensus as I feel biased as article creator. I think that is the easiest way of handling this. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done: Articles for deletion/Dulcita Lieggi – hysteria18 (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Droodkin (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE Reply
WP:BEFORE is just an application of WP:NOTABILITY, that explicitally says :''Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation.'' Searching for sources before saying, as you said, that a subject "fails GNG" is an obvious requirement before proposing an article for deletion, it will not take to you more than three-four minutes. Regards, Cavarrone (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That makes some sense. On the other hand, rather than addressing my second and more serious concern you've repeated the false claims which led me to express it in the first place. I'd like to remind you again of the importance of assuming good faith. – hysteria18 (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Edward Łazikowski not meet notability guideline for creative professionals ?
Edward Łazikowski not meet notability guideline for creative professionals ?

Hello - please explain why? This person have works in couple on National Museums - thats something!

thank You

(Nextaz (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC))
 * Yeah, I think you're probably right. I've removed the prod template because I think he meets point 4d of the notability guideline. It'd be great if you could help add references to reliable sources to the article though. Thanks! – hysteria18 (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Torquay Academy
I read a policy a few months ago that stated that high schools were inherently notable and primary schools were not. However, like you I can no longer find it. I have no idea whether my memory is playing tricks or whether there has been a change. Nevertheless, I still think that this article does not say anything unexpected that would not be supportable and would prefer that it goes the AFd route rather than the PROD route. Op47 (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You might be thinking of Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, which isn't strictly policy but says that a similar standard often applies when schools are nominated at AfD. However this one's kind of more complicated as (per the article) Torquay Academy sort of doesn't exist yet and so might meet that section's final point. I'm going to have a look for sources and see whether it's salvageable, and if not then AfD or redirect. – hysteria18 (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: I couldn't make my mind up. Check out the talk page if you're interested. – hysteria18 (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As a heads up for you, I've just redirected TCC to TA and sorted out the TA page a bit to include some basic bits and bobs from both articles. I've tried to avoid the primary source stuff about a sixth form which is clearly a while ahead yet I'd imagine. If you can find anything local to add to it then it'd be good - seems to have been some of the usual school based vandalism there now that term has started (which actually indicates it probably does exist which was my initial worry) so it's on my watch list. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update and for sorting the articles. I vaguely remember being confused as to the role of Torquay Boys' Grammar School in the equation, but I think you're right: a closer a reading of the October 2011 article makes it seem more like a sponsorship than a merger. Keep up the good work! – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Clarification tag at 99% Declaration Article
You inserted a tag requesting clarification of a sentence in the lead of this article. The general term is clarified just an inch or two down the page, in the body of the article, which discusses the specific official OWS groups that have rejected the 99% Declaration. I included this explanation in the edit summary. If you wish to discuss this further, I'm all ears at the Talk page. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 16:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Log Kya Kahenge
Thank you for your withdrawl in consideration of the massive improvements to the article. As an opining editor, it might otherwise have been improper for me to close, but with your withdrawal, there was no longer a valid reason to keep the discussion open. Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Arnold Wathen Robinson
Never clear whether I put my comments on your talk page or mine!

Anyway I have put the comment on my talk page and hope that you will pick it up.

Weglinde (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Plane ride from hell for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Plane ride from hell is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Plane ride from hell until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. kelapstick(bainuu) 08:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Frickeg (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Pacific Institute of Public Policy
Hello Arms & Hearts,

I will be removing the "for deletion" thing as soon as I can find it and I will find some more sources that better show the 'notability' of PiPP. You suggested the website only included articles which mentioned PiPP in passing, but I feel that many of the articles only existed because topics came up due to surveys and research findings from PiPP. Therefor, it seems a little unusual to suggest that PiPP was only 'mentioned in passing'.

On the page, PiPP was also cited in papers by the Australian Government's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade along with the Australian aid agency AusAID - which has donated around 500 million dollars to the Pacific Islands.

PiPP is well known in the region, particularly in Australia and among the Pacific Islands and I can assure you it is 'notable'.

Talk to you again soon.

Kind Regards,

Tobes82 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobes82 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for not removing the Article for deletion/dated template, which needs to remain on the page as long as the deletion discussion continues, and for working to find sources. The Articles for deletion discussion will run for a week, and whether the article is deleted will be determined by consensus. What you say here won't have any bearing on whether the article's deleted; however your input is welcome at Articles for deletion/Pacific Institute of Public Policy. (You might also want to take our guide to contributing to deletion discussions.) Feel free to get back to me with any further questions. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, I'm new to Wikipedia so must admit I am a little confused. Thank you for your patience. You're saying I should not remove the article for deletion template yet I have a message saying, "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."
 * Yeah, I can see how that'd be confusing. Basically, there are three different ways Wikipedia articles get deleted: speedy deletion, for articles which are obviously and uncontroversially inappropriate; proposed deletion, for articles which an editor thinks might be uncontroversially deletable; and articles for deletion (AfD), for cases where not everyone is likely to agree with deletion, so broader input is requested. Pacific Institute of Public Policy was first proposed for deletion, which is why that message was on your talk page. However, an editor objected to the proposed deletion, so I created an AfD discussion (where I see you've responded – thanks for that). As a general rule, if there's more than one notice on your talk page relating to deletion of a given article, it's probably safe to ignore all but the most recent. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk results
The merge discussion on Talk:Lord's Prayer is more than 2 weeks old and it looks like consensus for No Merge. As for the other page full of texts, see my comment suggesting moving it to WikiSource. Thanks. —Telpardec TALK  23:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, thanks. Had kinda forgotten about that. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Tonga National Tag Team
I have removed your proposal for deletion. This article meets Notable criteria. We are trying to upload stats table and images but its something in here Wikipedia Which we trying to work through with wiki.

It seems by your history of "editing" all you do is Propose to delete?? If youre trying to get your editing figures up, try doing it another way.

There are many notable articles here you have posted to delete? ☻Ÿ 05:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sipooti (talk • contribs)
 * Hi there. Thanks for your contributions. Which of the notability criteria for organisations do you think Tonga National Tag Team meets? (As an aside, I'd appreciate if you'd abide by WP:AVOIDYOU, which asks editors to focus on content and actions rather than on people. In this case that means that, while you should feel free to comment on my proposing that the article be deleted, my reasons for editing and edit history aside from that article are probably irrelevant.) Thanks again! – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, one more thing: it'd also be good if you could avoid using all caps in edit summaries. While I'm sure it wasn't your intention, typing like that can be understood to represent shouting, which isn't in the spirit of WP:CIVIL. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I was shouting lol - I had an angry day yesterday - Sorry you had to deal with that! :) But thank you for being the bigger person and staying constuctive!! Have a good weekend! ☻Ÿ 23:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You haven't answered my central question: which of the notability criteria for organisations do you think it meets? If it doesn't meet any, and can't be shown to meet the general notability guideline, I'm going to nominate it for deletion. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The Crusader Union of Australia
I have seen that you want to delete this article but don't know what I can do to help. I currently have no connection with this group but believe it to be notable. I am not an evangelical Christian, lapsed Anglican would best describe me, so I'm not waving a flag. Crusaders has been around for a long time, I went to one of their camps in 1972, and if you talk to any privately educated boy or girl of the last 60 years they will know about it. Perhaps you should open this to a wider discussion on deletion. I would be interested to hear other opinions. Thanks Castlemate (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, there was no suggestion of a conflict of interest. My concern was that the article doesn't seem to meet the notability guideline for organisations, which says, among other things, that an organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. If you think it meets that guideline, it'd be best to demonstrate it by adding those sources; in the meantime though, feel free to remove the Proposed deletion/dated template from the top of the page, as any editor is free to do. If you have any other questions or concerns feel free to ask here and/or on the article's talk page. Thanks! – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I have removed the Proposed deletion/dated template as I believe the first reference from Pro-bono Australia asserts notability. Castlemate (talk) 06:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The Color Wheel
Redirecting The Color Wheel to Color wheel makes no sense. I fixed it, so don't unfix it, requiring a hat note. Nobody searches on "The...", and the only use of the redirect was in reference to the film. The right fix is now to move the film to get rid of it's unneeded parenthetical. Dicklyon (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think maybe the first thing you need to remember is that it really isn't remotely a big deal. I think someone searching for "The Color Wheel" is more likely to be looking for the color wheel; you think they're more likely to be looking for The Color Wheel (film). Neither version would be "broken", so neither requires "fixing". In the absence of an agreement, I think we have two options:
 * To turn The Color Wheel into a disambiguation page, as a sort of compromise, or
 * To request a third opinion.
 * What do you think? Thanks. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Probably the discussion I started at Talk:The Color Wheel (film) will inform this issue. Dicklyon (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Declined speedies
I have declined the speedies on Reaction button and Sisu vidya mandiram high school 2007-08. A7 is not even remotely applicable; schools don't qualify for speedy deletion in the first place, except in cases of vandalism, plagiarism, or possibly spam. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sisu vidya mandiram high school 2007-08 is about a group ("batch") of students, not their school, so A7 sort of applies. Oddly, the description of db-a7 given in Twinkle includes the phrase "group of people", which isn't used in the actual policy. Anyway, it's on track to be deleted in a few hours anyway, so no big deal. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I don't understand your rationale with regard to reaction button. It's clearly web content, and clearly doesn't make a claim to notability. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Try AfD if you like. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply
Hy. You have a reply. Thanks. --Apollineo! (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please don't touch the article before the end of the discussion. Thanks. --Apollineo! (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If you want a third opinion, ask it, but in my opinion it would be sufficient if you quit to troll. Thanks. --Apollineo! (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Tonga National Tag Team
WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM!!! - Perhaps some slight COMPREHENSION issues or PERSONAL issues you NEED TO GET OVER YOURSELF!!! AND YES I AM SHOUTING AT YOU!! - Like I said to you before, obviously you have nothing else to do but just sit in front of the computer and nominate articles for delection!! 99.99% of NOTABLE!! = Dont let you lack of comprehension waste other peoples time trying to make things clearer for you. LOOK AT THE REPLIES on your talk!! AND THE ONLY person who has an issue for delection is YOU!!! You have taken a stubborn stance. DO SOME RESEARCH around here and STOP TRYING TO GET YOUR EDIT COUNT UP?! If you wanted to discuss it go on the articles talk page!! THE EXPLANATION IS ON THERE!!

IM TAKING IT OFF - GO THE TALK PAGE AND FIND OUT WHY! - Be Profession and have an attitude shift! ☻Ÿ 23:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sipooti (talk • contribs)

Talkback
--I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @ 08:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Vale Recreation FC Page
Hi,

Thanks for you note on the Vale Recreation FC page, I have now re-written that part but I do not understand the phrase Prose? Any advice greatly appreciated. Thanks (GsyFootball (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC))
 * Thanks for your work. I added the prose tag because I think the content would be clearer to readers expressed in prose rather than a list or table format, as recommended by the Wikipedia manual of style. So for example, the first line of the honours table might read: "The club have won the Priaulx League on 15 occasions: 1972/73, 1973/74, 1974/75..." Alternatively, the list of honours could be merged into the history section, so their victories are listed alongside the developments described there. As it stands I don't think it's especially clear – for example, it took me a while to work out what the "number" section refers to. But anyway, it was just a suggestion – ultimately it's up to you. Keep up the good work! – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Shrike (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Sarsak
The information I wrote was taken from the 5 or 6 references I included (most of them are nearly identical). They all included all this info about Islamic Jihad at the top of their article, so I included it as well. I also included the info about hundreds of people gretting him, being hoisted on shoulders, meeting family, and his personal statement, which wasn't in many of these articles but in a different article (which I also referenced). If you have further information, feel free to contribute, but everything written there is based on the references. It seems really like there wasn't that much other than his statement and Islamic Jihad statement/celebration in those articles (the rest of the articles were pretty much talking about his detention which is already in the Wikipedia article). And Palestinian media has pretty much played it down, with the exclusion of Islamic Jihad websites (which featured it as featured article a number of times today, I didn't reference it though, you can if you want). Feel free to add any more relevant info that you can find that's reliable. I hope that clarifeis it. -- Activism  1234  00:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this belongs at Talk:Mahmoud Sarsak, so I'll respond there. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah got it, and responded there. Looking forward to working with you on this and any future articles you'd like. -- Activism  1234  01:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

List of Tea Party politicians AfD
Hi Arms & Hearts, it's becoming a bit of a pile-on at that AfD, so I was hoping to get a better idea of your rationale here. The Tea Party is a tricky beast; it's not a monolithic institution, but I do think it's institutional. Progressivism isn't an institution, even if institutions like Congressional Progressive Caucus are affiliated with it. If you want to argue that the Tea Party movement is an ideology more than an institution, I'm sympathetic, but I think that's a minority opinion compared to most coverage in reliable sources. And I think the current criteria on the article—endorsements, self-identification, and caucus affiliation—are responsible, objective, and verifiable. You seem to be arguing that because there are Tea Party politicians that don't fit those criteria (and thus won't be included) that we're engaging in original research. If you're arguing that excluding some (unsourced) entries from a list is a form of original research, I'm afraid I can't agree. If you're more concerned with individual Tea Party politicians who don't fit those criteria, by all means, bring them up on the talk page so we can discuss different inclusion criteria.

By the way, I think the shortcuts WP:NOEFFORT and WP:NEGLECT are unfortunate, as their use in AfD discussions implies that the nominator has demonstrated "no effort" or "neglect," which is clearly not the case. It seems like you're frustrated by a lack of progress on the article. I'll see what I can do to improve it. Best, BDD (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think you've got my argument about right – the only thing is that my concerns about OR are in relation to setting self-identification as a sole criterion. The current criteria are problematic for other reasons (mostly unfeasible breadth). And no, I'm certainly not arguing against removing unsourced names – I think after the AfD the article will need a radical overhaul, beginning with the removal of all unsourced names (most of which will ideally be restored later). I'll probably admit defeat tomorrow and make a start on the actual article. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I gave the whole thing an overhaul, which I think is a big improvement visually. It also makes it very clear which politicians have articles and which have references to facilitate removal of inappropriate items. I hope this helps make further improvements easier. --BDD (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the article needs to be cleanly and verifiably sourced, and all claims that are uncited, need to be removed. I have started the process of tagging citation needed on many of the claims I wish to challenge (mostly I got through politicians starting with A through G). Would be happy if other editors fact-tagged many more of the unsourced claims. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Check your Wikipedia email: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 00:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

July 2012
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:94.193.234.10. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.94.193.234.10 (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

William Black, Baron Black.
The man was managing Director of the Builders of the Routemaster bus, then MD of it's parent comany then chairman of the Largest bus maker in Europe, who also happened to be number 2 truck maker, I don't see how that isn't notable enough Stephen Allcroft (talk) 12:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Stephen Allcroft
 * Yeah, I agree. Thanks for your work. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Redirects
Please see the template message at. My understanding is that we do make these redirects, for though our internal search engine will find it, other search engines and links may not. I think there's a long discussion of it somewhere when it was proposed to stop making them.

Redirects are cheap--the load on the database is extremely minuscule. it takes much more effort to remove them when they're just redundant. The times to remove them are when they are wrong or confusing or pointy.  DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've nothing against the existence of such redirects. The problem is when they hold up actual articles. In this case, International Affairs would be fine pointing to International affairs if it weren't for the existence of International Affairs (journal), which doesn't need the parenthetical disambiguation because there are no other topics called "International Affairs". (Article titles which differ only in capitalisation are allowed per WP:PRECISE.) – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * to the extent that search engines normalize or ignore capitalization, titles different only in initial capitalization are confusing. I have however no intention of trying to make solid ground out of the quagmire that is the MOS in any general matter. In this specific case I. A. refers to the disam p. I. a., which lists the journal as one of the alternatives. I think the existing situation is the clearest. If you disagree, & think it matters, I suppose RfD is the place. Speedy is for stuff everyone agrees on; to the extent that it can be argued, it doesn't belong it CSD.  DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't requested moves be the right process? – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

New talkback
-- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 22:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Malformed message
The message you left on my talk page is malformed; please take more care. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, my bad. I saw the typo and fixed it on the article but not on your talk page. I guess you understood it though. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

List of ships of the Royal Moroccan Navy
I think this list article deserves to exist on its own. There is no guideline in Wikipedia that says (e.g.) a table cannot exist on two different articles. If anything, the table could be removed from main article where detailed lengthy lists do not really fit well.

Anyway if you want to keep it redirected I'm fine with that (for now). --Tachfin (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The relevant guideline is WP:REDUNDANTFORK – apologies for not making that clear. WP:SPLIT is also relevant. My main concern's that the content isn't duplicated and the article isn't split needlessly (i.e., against WP:SIZERULE's rule of thumb), but if you want to work out another way of doing it within those guidelines (or, even better, substantially expand the content so splitting becomes an option) that'd be great. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced WP:FORK is relevant, fork is when there are two articles about one exact same topic, here scope is different. The current redirect is a reasonable solution though, I may consider splitting in the future. --Tachfin (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I see where you're coming from. On the other hand, WP:FORK explicitly includes summary style as an example, which is defined by articles being spun off with narrower scopes. Anyway, it's obviously not a big deal. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Sam-Russell-006.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Sam-Russell-006.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

AfD of interest
Since you commented on prods or such of this article before, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Line Löwenstein.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 22:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Nice job on your posting.

Whiteboycat (talk) 01:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC) 

November 2012
i responded to you on my talkpage. please write back, thanks. Norspct (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

responded again over on my talkpage. please get back to me. Norspct (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Welsh_Socialist_Republican_Movement
Hi Arms & Hearts, I responded at User_talk:Vejvančický. Best regards. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010
I am contacting you because you have participated in prior discussions at the above article, and it would be appreciated if you gave your views on an current dispute. One editor wants to add a gallery of images for people who declined to stand for the leadership. Another editor objects on the grounds that doing so puts undue weight on the people who did not participate. -Rrius (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Pickering
Thanks for reminding me. I will be at NYPL tomorrow.  DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Madeleine McCann infobox
Hi A&H, I've posted a box with more parameters as requested, in case you want to take a look. See here. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you! SlimVirgin (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Question
I see that every single page I nominated for deletion/redirect, you supported it being kept, no matter how irrelevant the person is. Under what circumstances, if any, would you support a deletion or redirect?Jerzeykydd (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd support deletion or redirecting if the article didn't meet the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for politicians. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)