User talk:Belovedfreak/Archive 22

RE: Third Opinion
Hi BelovedFreak,

I'm not quite sure what more can be said in this situation. There was discussion back in 2008 about this subject on the talk page and there wasn't enough interest to find consensus, even though I believe the final post was leaning in my direction. The fact that the editor I am fighting with is an IP makes it even harder for me to reach out about this. He doesn't seem to understand reliable sources or sourcing at all. --Tarage (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Impressive Work
Loving your work on Shuttleworth Hall and St Peter's Church, Burnley. Any plans to continue down the II* listings in Burnley? I was thinking about doing an article for Burnley Mechanics but I’ll happily leave it to you. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Well, I hadn't any such plans in particular, but it looks like there are only 4 of them, so why not? I'll see if I can knock somthing up on the Burnley Mechanics, and then you can add to it if you like.
 * Sounds good to me, although I’m not sure where you get 4 from? I count 13, of which you’ve already done 2 and another 2 could be counted as 1. Not that I’m suggesting anything. One thing you may find useful, I’ve previously put links to full copies of Vols 1 – 6 of VCH Lancaster at archive.org on Lancashire--Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha, I had a feeling as I typed that, that you were going to come back and tell me there were loads more! I was looking on British Listed buildings, but I know that can be out of date and/or confusing in terms of boundaries. Anyway, I'm putting something together at the moment for the Mechanics.-- Beloved Freak  20:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There ya go, it's a start. Feel free to add/correct! -- Beloved Freak  22:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Quality work and speedy too, I hope you won’t mind me asking but do you use some sort of app to create these articles, or are you just that good?--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I hope that doesn't mean they're all looking the same, which I suppose is the danger of doing them quickly. But no, I don't have an app! With listed buildings I basically know that I'll be drawing from English Heritage and (if in North Lancs) from my Hartwell & Pevsner book, and quite possibly from the Victoria County Histories. So, I just read through those, and make a start. I'm quite familiar with the structure of other articles I've done (especially churches), so they just go from there. If I find any obvious titbits from google books, then I add those. Of course it takes a bit more time & effort to make a decent article, but at least you can get some useful (& hopefully interesting) information in there quite quickly.  Beloved  Freak  20:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Nadia Ali
Hey there would you please be able to give me a review on the Nadia Ali article to see what else I can do to get it to GA? Thanks! Hassan514 (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Grammy Award for Best Zydeco or Cajun Music Album
I hope your concerns have been addressed. Thanks again for taking time to offer a thorough review! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Take the broom?
Hi. Just looking through your contributions, and it's really about time you took the broom. You are hard-working, civil, intelligent and patient. You get involved in article building, and you get involved in AfD and copyright issues and dispute resolution and giving assistance to other users. You appear to have a good knowledge of Wikipedia and how it works, and are in line with consensus. How would you feel about me nominating you at RfA?  SilkTork  *Tea time 08:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Amen to this idea! Actually, no, scratch that.  This should have happened a long while ago.  Courcelles 09:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks.. that's very kind, and thanks for the offer. I guess I could give it a shot, although I have quite a few things I want to concentrate on at the moment, both here and in real life. Perhaps we could postpone it a little? I also need to think about it a bit more and make sure I really want to put myself through RFA (not that it doesn't look like a barrel of laughs... :-) ) -- Beloved Freak  20:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, RfA can be a strain. This - RfA reform 2011 - is a decent project aiming to reduce the strain, and that page has some useful links. But it's really no more of a strain than going through a GAN or FAC. It can be less of a strain, as sometimes a GAN/FAC can be a real pain in the arse when someone picks on "that" bit in the article that you knew was weak, but never got around to fixing because it was too difficult. And now you HAVE to fix it!
 * How long do you wish to postpone? These things can drift if left too long. Will a month be enough?  SilkTork  *Tea time 23:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, but RFA's a little more personal! Yes, a month sounds ok. -- Beloved Freak  00:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks here too
Hello Belovedfreak. Though I posted on Favonian's talk page I also wanted to add my thanks here for your reporting that 90 range IP that is editing so disruptively. I am especially glad of your previous knowledge of the editing pattern. It will help if I come across them again in the future. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Merrick
Hey, Belovedfreak! I'm curious about something: an editor removed the image from the infobox awhile back, and nothing was really said about it. I'm pretty sure that image would be in the public domain, and am pretty unsure of why it was removed by that editor; I think it was a perceived issue with the source. Don't you think it should back in there? I could find it and upload it to WP Commons as a public domain image, and then it wouldn't have any questionable rationale whatsoever. What say you? Doc  talk  22:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see Grapple X took care of it. Cheers :> Doc   talk  22:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Argh.. I keep meaning to get on top of this, but keep putting it off ... I'm not 100% on image use policies, but I'm pretty sure it should be usable because of the date it was taken. I presume it was removed from commons because the information on the file was wrong or missing or somehow not compliant with licensing. This one's a bit more complicated than those other images of him because I'm not sure if that photo was ever published, which may change the license that should be used. I do think we should have it though, because it's a much better infobox one than the ones where he's naked & being viewed as a medical specimen. If you feel confident working out the licensing, then go for it. I'm not sure of the exact date of it, or who took it. Update:I've reverted the addition of the colour one because that one's not licensed yet properly—it wouldn't pass FAC. Also, I think we need a discussion on whether to use the original or one recoloured by the uploader. I'll start a discussion at the talkpage. -- Beloved Freak  22:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The image can be used as it is over 120 years since the image was created - see .  SilkTork  *Tea time 23:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Does that mean here, or at Commons, or both? I'm trying to upload it at Commons now, but the only relevant licenses I can see are for the author having died 100 years ago, or 70 years ago, and in this case, the author is unknown. -- Beloved Freak  00:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * PD images are uploaded to Commons. I checked, and you are right, nobody has made a tag for this specific event, so you have to use a generic tag and supply the reason - for example:


 * I hope that helps.  SilkTork  *Tea time 16:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that SilkTork, that helps. Does that definitely work for Commons? I only ask because I thought I read somewhere about some licenses only being relevant to US law and therefore for use here - whereas you have to comply with both US law and the law relevant to where the image is from on Commons? Only I can't find that now, so I don't know... I asked for help at Commons, but so far the advice given there is just confusing me even more. This stuff makes my head want to explode. -- Beloved Freak  21:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll find it and upload it to Commons with the proper licensing. Unless you're already halfway there :> Doc   talk  03:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks muchly for that - it was starting to give me a headache! I've changed the license per the last advice at this thread on the Commons helpdesk. I got several conflicting pieces of advice, but with the PD-US one, I think it needs to have been published prior to 1923. Hopefully the explanatory wording will help, see what you think, you may disagree. Anyway, I'm going to stop obsessing over this - hopefully it's good enough and if not, I'm sure it will be pointed out, and hopefully fixed, at FAC. Anyway, thanks both of you! :) -- Beloved  Freak  09:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.

 * Thanks Crosstemplejay and well done on all those DYKs! I had noticed a few Ghana related topics cropping up on the mainpage! :) -- Beloved Freak  21:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Marsh Mill
Look, you can't edit any list of windmills on en-wiki without me knowing about it! I've reassessed as C class - per discussion at WT:MILLS, an editor shouldn't really assess their own articles, although there's no actual rule that prevents this. Have a look at Black Mill, Barham and compare the two articles, with a bit more history and detail, the article can make B class.


 * Hi. I've nominated Marsh Mill, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Mjroots (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Mjroots (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Maba Diakhou Bâ
Hi Belovedfreak,

I was browsing through Wiki about Senegambian related articles when I came upon the article for Maba Diakhou Bâ. When I went to view history, I noticed that you were the last person to edit that article. That article apparently has been on display for few years now. This is the first time I have seen it. The reason I write is in relation to the accounts beings presented there by the author. I can say with 100% certainty that most of the accounts narrated there are factualy incorrect. Not only is Maba Diakhou Bâ a distant relative of mine through marriage (his mother was a relative of my great great grandmother and his son another jihadist was the nephew of my great great grandmother), I have documentary evidence all from notable sources proving that the accounts being narrated there are nothing but misinformation whose desire is to mislead. To give you a very brief background, Senegal and The Gambia are predominantly muslim countries. Maba Diakhou Bâ was instrumental in waging jihad, converting and enslaving people as well as engaging in back handed dealings with the French and British administrations. After he was killed by the Serer people led by their King (Buur Sine Kumba Ndoffene Famak Joof) on 18th July 1867 at the Battle of Fandane Thiouthiogne (commonly known as The Battle of Somb), the Senegambian muslim majority led by the Muslim brotherhoods of Senegal considered him to be a saint and have fabricated his historical account and keep narrating it. However, the treaties that he had signed, his wars and greed are well documented. These official documents did not lie backing up the accounts narrated by the Serer people from the Kingdom of Sine when he though he could go and Islamised them as he had done in other kingdoms. I can email you direct sources from archives and notable sections from books if you wish. I chose not to place a notice for speedy deletion because I think his historical account deserves to be added in Wiki but it should be told truthfully and accurate rather than the propaganda being narrated. Further, I don't think the neutrality remark is strong enough to be placed there. Some of what has been written is true, but the majority of it particularly in relation to the Kingdom of Sine, Kingdom of Saloum, slavery and the fact that he was anti colonialist is utter nonesense. If I was to make editions to that article, I will have to redo most of that article but I do not want to be viewed as vandalising it. My question to you is what can be done about this?

Thank for your anticipated reply.

Tamsier (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Tamsier, thanks for your message. Firstly, I must admit that I don't know too much about the subject. I was the last person to edit, but my edits were very minor, just fixing wikilinks to make sure that they point to the right article. Not that I mind you coming here, but looking at the history, it seems that the article was mostly written by User:T L Miles. The article has several sources, which look reliable, so I can understand you wanting to tread carefully if you are planing such radical changes. Thanks for you patience on that. What I would suggest is discussing this at the article talkpage (Talk:Maba Diakhou Bâ), so that other interested parties can see it, and dropping a note to User:T L Miles's talkpage so that he can participate too.


 * Verifiability is one of the most important policies on Wikipedia. At the top of that, it states "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", meaning that we include what is written in good quality reliable sources, even if they seem to contradict what we think to be "true", but can't back up. However, even what appear to be reliable sources can be wrong, and two different reliable sources can disagree, so we also have to weigh up the available sources and represent them in a balanced way. If you have reliable sources saying something different (and it sounds like you do), then we can use them to add a different view point to the article. It would be helpful if you can collaborate with T L Miles on this because he may still have access to the sources he used. If you end up with equally reliable sources with different opinions, then you may have to write the article to reflect that—eg. "'Writer X has described Maba Diakhou Bâ as 'anti colonialist' Writers Y and Z have described such accounts as 'propaganda'. Writer A has noted his involvement with British and French administrations."


 * Obviously, you'd be able to give more detail. The last thing I would say is that if you have reliable secondary sources, then they can certainly be used. Primary sources, like official government documents are a bit trickier. We need to rely on secondary sources so that we can represent what other reliable sources have said on the topic and avoid making our own interpretations of primary sources. So, what I would do now is start a discussion at the article talkpage, try to give specific examples of parts of the article you think are inaccurate and how you think they should be changed, and provide your references there. Notify User:T L Miles and ask him what he thinks. Sorry to ask you to repeat yourself elsewhere, but you can always copy and paste part of what you have written above. I just think it would be better to discuss the specifics at the article talkpage.-- Beloved Freak  09:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Belovedfreak,

Thank you for your reply. As stated before, when I first came across the article I did go to "view history" to see who was the original author. Yes, User:T L Miles wrote most of it, but I thought he was an Administrator who was merely translating the French version on Wiki into English judging by his short notes on the view history section. Today, I looked at all the articles he had authored or translated, and it is more than likely his role was greater than just translating (he might have been the original author of the article himself as you stated). As such, I will act on your advise and start a discussion today.

Thank you very much for your advise.

Tamsier (talk) 10:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Question/Confusion Seeking Advice
Hi Belovedfreak,

I just wanted to check in on this policy of "notability" for people. I don't really care one way or the other if you delete the either or both of the people I created pages on, there have only been 2. But after reading the notability page, it seems that referencing someones accomplishments that were widely verifiable with a Google search use to be ok, but now citing what could press is required?

I guess it stems from the "exists" vs. "notable" comment. Because I've see several there are 100's of self written promotional bios that are basically Resume's I've seen of people one might find in lots of publications but not exciting or popular (Jonathan M. Rothberg comes to mind), and being mentioned in the media a few times doesn't make someone more "popular" or "worthy" of a bio, and artists such as Howe Gelb come to mind as not in the press much but more people would search for him and want to know about him.

So, forgive me, and I'd be happy to hear an explanation privately if you would prefer, but how'd this policy happen, and is there more behind it I can find besides what's written in the guidelines (like the why part)? If it's popular, people will view it, edit it, fix it.. If it is not, it just sits ignored anyway... Wasn't that somewhat the power of WikiPedia?

Badlandz (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I'm sorry if I caused any confusion in requesting more sources, I was somewhat distracted this morning. The point I was trying to make was that we could do with more coverage of Kelly or his work, in addition to verifying his credits. That tag wasn't really adequate, and I really could have explained better on the talkpage instead of relying on my edit summary. I've added a link to a review of his album, which can be used as a reference. As for notability, in addition to the general guideline, Notability (music) is relevant here. You'll notice that it states "A musician ... may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:" (my emphasis). From what is written in the article, it would seem that Kelly meets criterion #10, but coverage in reliable sources helps to nail down notability. Things like reviews, interviews, articles about him specifically (not just his band) are all good.


 * As for your more general questions—I don't know exactly how the policy came about, other than over several years, with the input of lots of editors. If you want to know more, you could read the earlier archives of Wikipedia talk:Notability, or even ask the regulars there. You might also be interested in reading Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia, Notability in Wikipedia (which ironically is tagged for questionable notability!), also Deletionism and Inclusionism. There are a number of essays on notability in Category:Wikipedia essays on notability. It's a topic that has been much discussed and argued over. As for other articles that seem to be in worse shape, "Other stuff exists" is a much-quoted essay, the essence of which is: yes, there are many, many bad articles on Wikipedia—many that shouldn't be here and many that just need improving, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't aim for all articles to meet policies & guidelines. I hope that helps somewhat. -- Beloved Freak  15:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: List of people indicted in the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
G, CAH, WC, and C stand for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and contempt of the Tribunal, respectively. The columns list the counts of each category of crimes with which individuals can be charged in the Tribunal. Utilizing a reader can see what the underlined abbreviations stand for by placing the mouse cursor over the abbreviation. However, in hindsight this isn't intuitive and the underlining is hard to see with such short abbreviations. I'd be happy to add a clear explanation to the article. – Zntrip 21:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. I've looked at the table so many times now that I have no sense of its readability or ease of use. Tooltips can be easily overlooked and I should have known. All the abbreviations to ranking tables in World Cup articles used to confuse me until I figured out the tooltips. – Zntrip 21:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Engineering Timelines
AFAIK, this is a reliable source. What mill do you have in mind, and what webpage? Will be able to give a definitive answer after I've seen it. Mjroots (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that looks good. Other sources you might try are the Images of England website (listed buildings only) and those listed or mentioned at the List of windmills in Lancashire. The three books mentioned are very rare and expensive, but may be available to view at a library in Lancashire. Mjroots (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You could try the British History Online webpage (linked from my user page - I've not checked myself as am currently writing my 1,000th article or list for Wiki). Mjroots (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Marsh Mill
The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Stalking
You're still stalking me! My best man (who lives by St Cuthbert's) is a trustee of Lytham Hall. Keep it up. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I try! I hope your friend wasn't the "Lytham Hall" user whose copyvio I removed! Actually, one reason I like editing local history stuff is that I know even casual readers often look up their home towns etc and I'd like to think some of them would get a kick out of reading (and, dare I say it, learning!) about things and places they are familiar with. I know I do! :) -- Beloved Freak  10:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So far as I know my friend is not a contributor to WP. And thanks for the very good article on Marsh Mill.  I used to visit it occasionally at lunchtimes when I was working at Norcross. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks, that's one I had on the go for a little while offline. -- Beloved Freak  18:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM June 2011 Newsletter
The June 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please leave a note on the Outreach department's talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Little Marton Mill
Materialscientist (talk) 08:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You deserve it!

 * Thanks! -- Beloved Freak  08:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

re: NP patrolling
Hey thanks for the note. Yeah, I usually PROD the unref'd BLPs... I just wanted to give the guy the benefit of the doubt this time LOL, but yeah I usually PROD and TW sends them the notice. As for my tagging, I did not know we shouldn't tag when the bot calls it a copyright violation. I guess it makes sense, so thanks for the note. I'll follow it. PS. was ur message automated? KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied here. -- Beloved Freak  09:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright so copyright violations are immediate CSDs? Well, the major ones of course, the minor ones such as paragraphs I(or someone) can re-write if I'm correct. I'll pay more attention, I just usually sweep the new pages then go back and help out with ones that I'm able to or knowledgeable in so I do tend to get carried away lol. Hey, how did you get the duplicator tool? It just linked to the toolserver profile of the page. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 09:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

CP bot problems
It would appear we have quite a serious problem with bots no longer listing things at WP:CP, please see Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems for more. Dpmuk (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Hesketh-Fleetwood
Sorry, didn't see you were using LDR when I put the Gazette reference in. I'm really glad to see this article geting worked on as he is such an important character in the history of the Fylde. The only suggestion I'd make about the references would be to take the ONDB cite out of LDR and put it into the sources section. As it sits at the moment it looks glaringly long when most others are so short. NtheP (talk) 08:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's no problem at all, thanks for adding the Gazette ref. I will try your suggestion as it does look a bit congested with the three-column layout. Beloved  Freak  08:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyright clerk consideration
Hi. :) We have a clerk consideration here. If you have any observations to add, they would be appreciated. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Spam Question?
Hi,

I know you're more experienced than I am, and that you're involved in WP:WPSPAM, I have a query about the article Porn 2.0, which has been in the recent changes list with a guy adding links etc to (presumably) porn sites. I don't really know what to do about this because although the article is about amateur porn, it seems the article is being turned into a link directory. I wondered if you could take a look at it. Is this simply an issue of notability, or is there any specific policy for articles which specifically deal with web content? Best Wishes, Pi        (Talk to me!  ) 15:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, no, this is clearly spam. At a glance, I'd say
 * External links shouldn't be added inline like that, they should be as references.
 * Even used between tags, links like that are often unnecessary. As you know, we use reliable sources to back up information and this does not usually mean a link to the relevant homepage. There are some exceptions (see WP:SPS), but usually we need independent coverage. Inappropriate links do sometimes get added to references either by more subtle spammers, or good faith editors trying to add refs, but not finding proper sources.
 * I'm not aware of any separate guidelines for web-related articles as I don't often work in that area but I know that they do ofter become spam-magnets.
 * I'd even question the listing of those sites that are under sub-headings. Some of them have been shown to be notable and have separate articles (I was involved in an AFD of one a while ago and some of these may still be borderline notable). Ones that don't have separate articles should really have at least some independent coverage, otherwise why are we discussing them? I'm not really going to get involved in that, so good luck if you do. Actually, I just went ahead and removed the unsourced ones. :)
 * Looking closer, I see that today's links are unrelated to the sites being described, and just go to a forum which is not being discsussed, and is not a reliable source. The forum links don't even mention the other websites so it looks like they are pure spam. I'd just keep reverting, warning, and if necessary reporting the IP to WP:AIV.-- Beloved Freak  16:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. The forum link was definitely non-notable, it was really the general issue of how many of those sites need to have a section. I might take a closer look later. Thanks Pi        (Talk to me!  ) 16:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok, I went off on a bit of a tangent then. Yes, I think it was still being used as a directory, even though some of them didn't have links. Like I said I removed some of the more obvious ones, but have not had an in depth look. I'm sure there's ample more room for improvement!-- Beloved Freak  16:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Eleven albums
Category:Eleven albums, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Lancs churches
First, congrats on GA for Peter Hesketh-Fleetwood; a very nice article. I have been pressing on with articles for List of ecclesiastical works by Paley and Austin, other than the churches in Lancashire. Would you like me to leave these for you? If not, would you be happy for me to have a go at some of them (and are there any "pets" you might like to do sometime)? I'm entirely happy with any option, I just don't want to step on your toes (or into your "territory"). Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks. Good job on your Cheshire houses too! I have no particular "pets" left on that list, but I'll certainly have a go at some. I don't mind at all if you do the Lancashire ones and I can't promise anything, but I'll put myself down for five to start with. I'll approach them in this order:
 * St Thomas', Garstang
 * St Andrew's, Leyland
 * St Bartholomew's, Great Harwood
 * St Wilfrid's, Halton
 * St Luke's, Winmarleigh
 * I'll see how I get on with those. If you find you've run out of other ones to do, by all means start on these, but in reverse order! By the way, I do you know that when you sort the table according to grade, it sorts B→Grade I→Grade II→Grade II*→no grade ? -- Beloved Freak  16:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's fine, there's lots more to do. I've sorted out the sorting on that list (I guess the others may have a similar problem, but I'll deal with those later).  Incidentally, like me, you seem to have been having trouble with Vegaswikian who has been messing about with defaultsort and categories.  I don't get it (and I guess you don't either).  Why should anyone want to sort on  "St", then "St." and others such as "Old" and "X chapel"?  S/he's messed up the whole business of dates of completion as well.  Although, perhaps like Malleus F, we should not get excited about categories.  But I do think it makes much more sense to have articles sorted on location rather than on the first letter of the title, whatever that is.  Thoughts? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought that was just a one off I'd spotted. I'll keep an eye out, but I think it is far more intuitive to sort by location, especially in categories populated only by churches. With other categories, there may be other options, but church articles can be tricky as some are named eg. "St Paul's Church" and others are eg, "Church of St Paul", so sorting those under "S" or "C" seems meaningless. Perhaps if this continues to be an issue, a discussion would be a good idea, although I'm not sure where. And yes, we should probably care a little less about categories, in the grand scheme of things, but I can't help having a bit of a geeky fascination for them!-- Beloved Freak  12:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Defaultsort
Following your last comment you might like to look at this --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And have you seen this. Perhaps we ought to sort by "Saint"..... (?) --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've not been around much, but I've just commented at the categorisation takpage. Basically I don't see any nice, clean solution to this, but agree that it should probably be consistent, whatever is decided.-- Beloved Freak  18:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for cleaning up that Blair Waldorf Good Article issue. Simply overlooked that. -- James26 (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It doesn't really matter too much, it's just that some reviewers check under topic sections that they are particularly interested in to choose an article to review. -- Beloved Freak  09:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Salt War (1540) note
Hello, and thanks for your comments to my Talk page. My username (foodinitaly) is indeed a reflection of a website: www.foodinitaly.org. This is an academic blog that I run with another history professor, Simon Young. Both of us our food history professors (I have my M.A., he has his Ph.D.) for an American university program in Italy, the Umbra Institute. Our blog is not a for-profit venture.

I have added a number of links to Wikpedia entries (e.g. Pasta alla Norma, Salt War, Aperitifs, Doogy Bag) referring to comments or posts on our blog. I think both SImon and I qualify as authorities ont he subject of Italian food history, and therefore I take a certain umbrage at seeing these warnings about inappropriate links. I could just have easily created a false account and linked these, but I did not do that. I am particularly annoyed at the note on my citation for the Salt War which says "unreliable source?". My article, the only scholarly work onteh link between the Salt War and the unsalted bread in Perugia, was published in a local, peer-reviewed journal. Why is that unreliable? The link is to our blog, but it goes to the original article and its translation.

I guess I need to better understand why as a professor of Italian food history I cannot put these links. I am sorry that they are in some cases the only ones, but now that I have created some of these entries, others can add to them. Why is this a problem?

Thanks much for your response here or on my Talk page. Zachary NowakFoodinitaly (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied at User talk:Foodinitaly.-- Beloved Freak  08:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

AfD
I hope you realised I didn't add that 'keep' header! Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah I realised, didn't mean to imply that in the summary! -- Beloved Freak  16:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)