User talk:Bsherr/Archives/2011

Andrew Peach
There needs to be something done about the Andrew Peach page. The reference regarding 5-Live is invalid. Even though it says Andrew Peach sits in for Stephen Nolan, that page doesn't provide enough evidence he is even an occasional stand-in presenter. The arguments I have read are rediculous. I have to agree with the few that say that 5-Live shouldn't even be on there. He is a presenter for BBC Berklshire only by the sounds of it, and is now hardly ever on Radio 2 as a news reader. I think we will need to take their word for it, as I am an avid Radio 2 listener and haven't heard Andrew on there for ages. As for 5-Live, I called up and asked about Andrew Peach, and the three people I spoke to before I got put through to the right person hadn;t a clue of who he was! --FreeSpirit10 (talk) 11:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A reference was provided for an instance in which he apparently stood in for a regular presenter. That doesn't speak to whether the occasion was notable enough to be included in the article. I wouldn't object to its being removed. --Bsherr (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that you are able to agree with people who don't think it's acceptable to have the link included? The link about 5-Live (and R2 for that matter!) are not necessary. Can we finalise this argument? 82.41.235.103 (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be better to discuss this on the article talk page. --Bsherr (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

At the moment, nobody can discuss any issues on the Andrew Peach talk page, as someone has put a semi protection on it. I would like to think that people are more adult than this. This is completeley unacceptable. Lets put this to bed once and for all and just keep it basic and just say he is a radio presenter on BBC Radio Berkshire and a occasional news reader on BBC Radio 2. Five Live need not be monetioned as the link is now invalid and I can't find any other evidence that he was ever on 5-Live. From what I can see, it seems that people are thinking that Andrew Peach is adjusting his own page to make himself sound big. To be honest, I can see this. I have studied carefully the times of which most of the edits have been made. Between 6am and 10am most of them, and from a BBC IP address. Hmm, that's strange I would say. a Breakfast presenter changing his own page during his show in his studio? Surely this is proof that he is editing his own page. Lets try and put a block on these IP addresses to see if any further changes will be made, instead of blocking other innocent people who are trying to help false facts be included on Wikipedia. Is there any way we can unlock the protection on the talk page and finalise this argument? 93.96.66.172 (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Jason Upton article

 * Thank you for doing the job. I was off for some days and I am not used to all that Wikipedia bureaucraty. I thought that was not allowed move the page back. Best wishes. Cgadbois (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Uw-block
Hello! I know you've been working alot on this template. When HJ full-protected it in August, this was brought to HJ's talk page, and HJ then brought the protection level down to semi. Today, can you think of anything more that needs to be done with this meta template? HJ wants it full-protected when we are done with the template. Hey Mid  (contribs) 16:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mechamind added a whole lot of parameters to it, and extracted out some of the block language as separate templates. I'd like to try to bring those back in and simplify it. As far as I know, there's been no vandalism of it. --Bsherr (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My question wasn't whether the template has been vandalized (it certainly hasn't) – my question was whether there is anything more to do with the template. Regarding the "extracted out some of the block language as separate templates" part, I think you mean after-block and unblock-hard. I've nominated both for deletion, since it seems they're not needed. Hey  Mid  (contribs) 15:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Help:R help
A tag has been placed on Help:R help, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. &mdash;  Paine Ellsworth  (  CLIMAX  )  19:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive news
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 19:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC).

Allmon
Why did you move it to mainspace only to PROD it? You should have just declined it instead. This is not the proper way to review Afc submissions. Jarkeld (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Which decline reason would you have used? I don't see any that are applicable. --Bsherr (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability. Jarkeld (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your changes were incorrect. The subject of the article is not a CSD A7 topic. --Bsherr (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you even read the whole text? Btw: please read WP:PROD as it is not for use outside main article space. Jarkeld (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you identify which of the A7 categories the subject of the article is within, then? --Bsherr (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "This suggestion doesn't sufficiently explain the importance or significance of the subject. See the speedy deletion criteria (A7) and/or guidelines on notability . Please provide more information on why the subject is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Thank you." See the italicized text: It is a standard template for A7 AND for notability issues. Jarkeld (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "This suggestion doesn't sufficiently explain the importance or significance of the subject." That's a standard that is only applied to A7 subjects. No? --Bsherr (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as Afc submissions are concerned, option nn can be used for both cases. Jarkeld (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * According to what? --Bsherr (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Template:AFC submission/doc and WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewing_instructions Jarkeld (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Would it not be better to use the correct standard for notability, significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, rather than the wrong one? And if "nn" is intended to be used for non-A7 topics, why would it use the A7 standard instead of the notability standard? --Bsherr (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am using the correct standard, it's just that software does not have it's own Non notable template message yet. See option music for example: notability and A7 type standards both at once. Jarkeld (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why you think you are using the correct standard? "Importance or significance" appears in WP:CSD A7, but appears nowhere on WP:Notability. Doesn't that suggest that you're using the wrong standard? --Bsherr (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain why User:Timotheus Canens calls it "nn - subject appears to be non-notable. Consider a more appropriate decline reason" --> because it doubles as A7 AND notability decline template. Jarkeld (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you are referring to. Could you address my question above? --Bsherr (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I already have, but you seem to be missing the point. Jarkeld (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If, as you claim, "importance or significance" is the general notability standard, why does it appear in WP:CSD A7, but nowhere on WP:Notability? --Bsherr (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is where you are missing the point. The tamplate is for Afc space only. Therefore it has A7 and notability in one. It has nothing to do with CSD. Jarkeld (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If that's true, then why does it use language from CSD A7 instead of from WP:Notability? Can you explain that? --Bsherr (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Because they chose that text when the Afc options were setup. I use the NN option: if you look at the table at WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewing_instructions you'll see that it is the final option at Notability. Jarkeld (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would they choose language from CSD A7 if, as you claim, CSD A7 has nothing to do with the template? Doesn't that indicate that it was only supposed to be used for A7 topics? --Bsherr (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you'd take a look at the editing history for WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewing_instructions and it's talkpage you might find out. Jarkeld (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I already did, and I did not find out. I expect the way to resolve this will be to come to a decision on the project talk page. --Bsherr (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
MotionX, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. Thank you for helping Wikipedia! → ♠ Gƒoley ↔ Four ♣ ← 20:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level.
 * Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider

TeamBOKE
Under the circumstances, should that be considered a promotional name as well? Half Shadow  04:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi HalfShadow. Probably. I think the username policy is so obnoxious. I hate enforcing it. But no argument against the evidence here. --Bsherr (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

WT:Attack page edit
Just wondering what the point of that was. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought you might. I've explained on the page. --Bsherr (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw that shortly after I edited here -- while all that was available was the popups edit summary, I was quite confused. :-) Thanks!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I hear that. I wish there were a way to give a proper edit summary using popups. Thanks for your patience. --Bsherr (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

my article on custom fit bras
I would like to find out what I need to do to make my article fit your criteria. You suggested that i list the info on the brassiere page, but it conflicts the information on that page, which is on standard bras. It is a specific style of bra, like training bra, sports bra, underwire bra, cupless bra, bandeau (strapless bra), nursing bra, or wonderbra, all which have their own pages. They are not sold in retail stores, they are only available through a custom bra specialist, which also makes them unique. They are sold by several different companies so they are not a "brand", but a type of bra.

I am not sure what else I can do to get a page started. Any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adolia (talk • contribs) 01:59, 20 January 2011


 * This is re. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Custom Fit Bras.


 * Note, we spoke about this quite extensively in the IRC help channel, and several helpers tried to explain the need for footnoted references (See WP:V, WP:REFB) - ie verifiable information, and not original research.  Chzz  ► 02:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Why can't a section of the bra article be dedicated to custom-fit bras? Are custom-fit bras not bras? --Bsherr (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There are several reasons the custom-fit bras do not fit into the general bra article. the first one would be in the construction and fit section. A custom fit bra is constructed entirely different than all other bras. The bra is also worn slightly different than standard bras, being lower in the back, not parallel to the floor. The sizing section is very different for the custom fit bras, so that section would not apply. The health issues section also does not apply, since a custom-fit bras main focus is to eliminate the health risks. Considering the differences in a custom-fit bra, i feel they deserve their own page. All the other bras that do have their own section actually fit in fine on the bra page. Some of them should not have been separated out, like the underwire bra, which describes 90% of the department store bras made today. Or the cupless bra, which only has 2 sources, both being online store sites who are using this name for a bra they sell (even though hundreds of other sites are selling the same style bra but not calling them a "cupless bra".) The custom fit bras have a unique, consistent design. The marketing of them is also unique, since they are not carried in department stores and you can only get them through a bra fitting specialist. I have been working hard at finding as many resources as I can for the page, but I do feel they deserve their own section. Adolia (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive invitation
Guoguo12 --Talk--  20:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

AFC Pending
Looks like we've cleared down the backlog; nice 'working with you' :-)  Chzz  ► 06:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers. --Bsherr (talk) 06:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

...and then I look again today, and there were 101 pending. Sheesh.

I've just dealt with the 20 or so that were on hold, and there are a few 'm' and 'o' that I can do. And I'll try to get through everything else too...but. Well. Just 'sheesh' really. \o/  Chzz  ► 08:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I hear that. It's an impossible task to stay on top of it. --Bsherr (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Somastate
Please restore the Delrevafd template. Regardless of whether an AfD close is under review at DRV (as opposed to a different admin action), I always place the Delrevafd template on the AfD. This documentation ensures that DRV is not gamed and lessens the chances of administrator mistakes. For example, the Delrevafd templates at Articles for deletion/Mikie Da Poet notify DRV participants that there have repeatedly been frivolous nominations. This prevents the community from wasting further time discussing a subject repeatedly deemed non-notable. Another benefit of using the templates is to protect against admin error. For example, the discussion at Deletion review/Log/2011 January 13 was closed as "Allow recreation". The Delrevafd on the AfD allows editors and admins to know that a community discussion endorses recreation. After adding the template to the AfD, the chances of an admin mistakenly deleting a recreated article about Slovio per G4 would be small. For Articles for deletion/Somastate, if the discussion is closed as "allow recreation" and the article is recreated, editors and admins can find, with a quick glance at the AfD, that it is community sanctioned. The Delrevafd template provides convenient links to obscure DRV discussions that editors and admins may otherwise miss if the template had not been on the page. Please self-revert your reversion of my Delrevafd tag. I ask you to contact me on my talk page if you believe I have made an error in adding a Delrevafd template instead of immediately removing it. I nearly missed your removal of the tag. Cunard (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That template states that the AfD is under deletion review, which is false. You may consider using a template with a different message. --Bsherr (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Better would be to use Template:Olddrvfull on the page if it still exists. --Bsherr (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Template:Olddrvfull is used for the talk pages. Perhaps Template:Delrevafd could be revised to encompass a wording that would apply for Somerstate? I cannot think of a concise wording at the moment. Do you have any suggestions? Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest editing Template:Olddrvfull to work on all pages, by using mbox instead of tmbox. The text of that template is entirely appropriate for the use you propose. --Bsherr (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You state on Template talk:Delrevafd that it is important to distinguish between both types of discussions. However, you advise me above to edit "Template:Olddrvfull to work on all pages". Please explain this discrepancy in your statements. Cunard (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. I suggested editing and then using Template:Olddrvfull. I don't understand why you then edited Template:Delrevafd. --Bsherr (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your stated position on this talk page indicates that it is not necessary to have different wordings for the two different types of DRV discussions ("[edit] Template:Olddrvfull to work on all pages"). It is inconsistent with the stance you take on Template talk:Delrevafd. Why did I revise Template:Delrevafd instead of Template:Olddrvfull? Because Template:Olddrvfull is transcluded to 71 pages (all of which are talk pages), I chose to revise Template:Delrevafd, which is transcluded to 1295 XfD pages. As I noted above, Template:Olddrvfull is for talk pages and Template:Delrevafd is for XfD pages. The template to revise—if any revision needs to be made—is the one that is transcluded to all the XfD pages. Cunard (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You wish to present the history of deletion reviews for a particular template. That is what Template:Olddrvfull does. With the simple deletion of the letter "t", it will be formatted correctly on both Wikipedia and talk pages. Contrast this to the other template, for which the concerns I expressed on its talk page are unaddressed. You may choose any approach, but you will have to satisfactorily justify it. --Bsherr (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not see any need to distinguish between the two types of DRV discussions. The current wording states that "This discussion was listed at Deletion review on Date". This is true for both types of DRV discussions. The discussion is being reviewed to see if it is correct and/or if it is still applicable in light of new information. Using a second template would needlessly complicate the DRV process. As we will not come to an agreement on this, I have asked DRV regular to prove a third opinion. Cunard (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Third opinion: I think this is a case of WP:BRD. Bsherr has boldly made a change because he sees a problem, and Cunard has challenged it.  I recommend that we follow usual Wikipedia practice by restoring the status quo ante for the time being, and seeking consensus about what to do.  I suggest that Bsherr's concerns should be raised on WT:DRV where other interested editors will have the opportunity to participate in the discussion. My personal opinion (which I present much less forcefully) is that I found our previous arrangements satisfactory and I don't yet see why it's necessary to change them, but I'm open to being persuaded, particularly if there's evidence that our current template arrangements have caused any confusion.— S Marshall  T/C 03:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm the one who revised Template:Delrevafd. I reworded the template to address Bsherr's concerns that the "template states that the AfD is under deletion review, which is false". Personally, I too think the template's current wording is fine. The issue that began this debate is Bsherr's reversion here. S Marshall, do you think there should be two templates to cover both situations? Cunard (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In terms of dispute resolution, I think that because there's a dispute, the status quo ante should probably prevail until there is consensus about the best way forward—even if all parties find the status quo ante unsatisfactory. I think the ideal solution would be one template rather than two, unless there's some way the one template might be automatically updated (perhaps by a bot?) once the DRV has been closed.— S Marshall  T/C 11:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer the status quo ante, though the thought of having a bot automatically updating the template is tantalizing. I have initiated the WT:DRV discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review. Cunard (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Naming conventions
Could you direct me to where the naming convention is for naming neighborhoods within a city. I've changed all the ones in Miami from the comma convention to the parenthesis, but I'm running into opposition from other editors as I'm trying to change other cities. They are saying there is no such convention, and that it should be the comma. Thanks. - Marc Averette (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Naming conventions (geographic names) states: "The canonical form for cities, towns and census-designated places in the United States is Placename, State (the "comma convention")." Neighborhoods, however, are usually not census-designated places. Therefore, for those subjects, the standard rules of disambiguation apply: only disambiguate if necessary, and using a parenthetical. --Bsherr (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The administrator User:Nyttend disagrees.
 * ==Page moves==

Where is this convention? The names for neighborhoods of Los Angeles were changed following a discussion here: Talk:Harbor City, Los Angeles.  Will Beback   talk    21:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * follow convention for neighborhoods within a city
 * Naming conventions (geographic names) states: "The canonical form for cities, towns and census-designated places in the United States is Placename, State (the "comma convention")." Neighborhoods, however, are usually not census-designated places. Therefore, for those subjects, the standard rules of disambiguation apply: only disambiguate if necessary, and using a parenthetical. -- Marc Averette (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So there is no convention for neighborhoods. The specific decision regarding the Los Angeles places would seem to supersede the non-existent naming convention. Could you please move the Los Angeles places back and start a fresh move thread regarding them if you wish for them to be moved?   Will Beback    talk    23:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If there's no naming convnetion for neighborhoods then you should not imply that there is one, as you're doing with edit summaries like this: "(follow convention for neighborhoods within a city)". If I understand you correctly, you are moving them because there is no naming convention for neighborhoods.   Will Beback    talk    02:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm using the standard rules of disambiguation - Marc Averette (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You really should start a discussion somewhere before moving hundreds or even thousands of pages. the fact that so many pages are in a different naming system indicates there may be a de facto standard. Please stop making these moves until it's been discussed in a central location and there's a consensus for this massive renaming project.   Will Beback    talk    02:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Ybor City
NEIGHBORHOODNAME is far less common for US neighborhoods than NEIGHBORHOODNAME, CITYNAME or NEIGHBORHOODNAME (CITYNAME). Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * But a name like Marathon Shores is unambiguous. Shouldn't Marathon Shores, Marathon be moved to a simpler unambiguous name per naming convention?  User:Bsherr told me this is the correct way to do it.  -  Marc Averette (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Moving a page from a common format to an uncommon one is very rarely a good idea. It's quite inappropriate to pretend that a move is noncontroversial when the proposal has just been rejected.  If you wish to have these pages moved, please follow the procedure spelled out at WP:RM.  Nyttend (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's nonsense, Nyttend. Requiring an appositive on a U.S. neighborhood is no more a convention than "Apple, Fruit". The name of the neighborhood is, simply, the name of the neighborhood. While individual WikiProject may have developed their own conventions, in the absence of anything, Wikipedia's standard rules for disambiguation apply. Absence of a convention is not an excuse to invent one's own rules. Of course, if there is a dispute, your're right that the matter should be brought to RM. --Bsherr (talk) 05:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Disruption to DRV
Please see this. To be clear:-
 * Until you pass RFA do not close DRVs. Especially if you plan to do something non-standard.
 * If you change any other part of the DRV process without consensus and then edit war over it then you will have no complaints after I block you.

This is the friendly warning. You do not have a long history at DRV and need to get the feel for it before you can be confident how it works and what is acceptable. As the final court of appeal it is crucial for the credibility of the whole deletion process that all closes are conducted by admins in accordance with long standing consensus and site-norms. Disruption and instability brings the whole deletion ediface into disrepute. Please think before you act. Spartaz Humbug! 08:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:WARN
Hi. I realise your lectures are genuinely made in GF but you may wish to consider doing what I always do: check out an editor's user page before launching into a lesson. FWIW if you've seen the number of AIV that  get  turned down because "hasn't been warned four times" or "hasn't  vandalised again for at  lest  20 minutes", you'll probably  understand why we have so  many vandals, and why  I'm so  keen on  recruiting competent New Page Patrollers and keeping  the ones we've got rather than  scaring  them away with silly templates written by  someone with  a lust  for  power. --Kudpung (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure what you mean by labelling my discussion as lectures or lessons, or what I might gain from looking at a user page. I sense that you might have a concern that I hope I might be able to put right. Could you be more explicit, please?
 * I do seek administrator intervention for vandalism, and I have occasionally been told that the history of warnings is insufficient. I've never been told there that four warnings are required, and if I were, I'd probably correct that administrator by referring to the vandalism and blocking policies, which don't provide any such minimum, nor do they even require warnings, for that matter. If, based on your experience, that's not clear enough from the policies, I'd be pleased to work with you to edit the policies.
 * I can only speak to template design, and not to new page patrolling. If you can identify any templates that are inappropriately silly, or that possess any negative effects of being written by someone with a lust for power, I'd be interested to know and improve them. You might have to be more specific about what the issues are, though. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That was my  main complaint  wasn't it? That  the members of the uw militia can only  speak for their templates, and are unable to consider the global, site-wide effect the templates they  craft might be having in the areas they get used (it's a bit like the St James' cabals of Whitehall law makers). I'm sorry if I offended you by 'labeling' your comments as lectures, after all, lecturing is what we academics do for a living; I'll AGF and assume you thought you were addressing a 2,000-edit freshy - it's an error I also make sometimes, like having once warned a couple of viciously warring sysops for 3rr ;) --Kudpung (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I was offended, just unsure. And I still am. I don't think I said anything in discussion that I would say differently to a novice or skilled user. So if you have a concern, do let me know. --Bsherr (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
FYI - as a courtesy. Kudpung (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there something in particular you refer me to? --Bsherr (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Attack TfD
Hi Bsherr, you mentioned that "The template should be formatted for uw and kept as a separate template". As I have closed the discussion as "keep", and as I'm not sure exactly what you mean, may you please proceed with the formatting changes as you see fit? Thanks, Airplaneman   ✈  06:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do. Starting a discussion at WT:UTM. --Bsherr (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

GOCE January Backlog elimination drive conclusion
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 14:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC).

User:Aerosprite, WP:UTM, & WT:UTM
Hey Bsherr. Please see this comment on this page. You may want to add something. Thanks! —  Spike Toronto  03:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

User talk namespace templates
Hi Bsherr, as I have mentioned at WT:UTM previously, I have been working on a draft in my userspace to try and amalgamate the various disparate WP:UTM pages. It was also suggested in discussions that this would be an opportunity to write a behavioral guideline concerning the design of user warning templates (and user talk namespace templates in general). As this work represents a large structural change to the project, I would like to invite you and other project members and trusted contributors to have some input. The work I have done so far can be seen at User:Pol430/Sandbox/User talk namespace, I would very much like to get other peoples ideas for expansion and improvement. Rather than engage in long, unwieldy discussions about what changes I should make, it would be easier if you were to make any changes you see fitting, directly into my sandbox. Please direct any related discussion to my main user talk page. You can take this message as my permission for you to edit the page User:Pol430/Sandbox/User talk namespace and any sub-pages thereof. If you are to busy or would rather not, don't worry. I won't be offended :) Pol430  talk to me 12:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been peeking in on it every so often, and it looks quite good. I'm eager to start offering suggestions. Thanks for your work. --Bsherr (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, by all means go ahead and make any changes you think fitting; if we could keep any related discussion to User talk:Pol430 that would be great. Spike and Kubigula have received the same invitation. Pol430  talk to me 12:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Aerosprite
Just to make you aware, I have had cause to raise concerns with Aerosprite's seemingly WP:NOCLUE edits to uw- series templates. I have sent them this message Pol430  talk to me 00:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

March 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive
Hi. On behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors, I am inviting you to sign up for our March Backlog Elimination Drive. Win a barnstar! It's fun. -- Diannaa (Talk) 01:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Request review of revised Air Cycle Corporation article
Hi Bsherr-a couple months ago, you commented on the Deletion review for my Air Cycle Corporation article. I've substantially reworked the citations for the article, and was wondering if you could take a look and let me know if you can approve it for the mainspace. It can be found here. Thanks so much. Synthality (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:Db-meta
In view of these contributions, please reply at Template talk:Db-meta. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you return. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:R help
There is currently a discussion on the talk page of Template:R help for the page to be moved to the help namespace. This discussion is going nowhere and since you were a participant in the TFD for this page, I thought you may like some imput.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  23:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:British Isles
Template:British Isles has been protected to allow for discussion of its title. It has been possible to change the title of this template on a page-by-page basis. Titles that have been used on different pages being:


 * British Isles
 * British-Irish Council area
 * Great Britain, Ireland, and related islands
 * British Isles — or Great Britain, Ireland, and related islands

A user has raised the question of whether this practice is a violation of NPOV.

A list of alternative solutions (aside form those being reverted between) is invited also. --RA (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive invitation
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 00:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)