User talk:Doddy Wuid/Archive 1

help me
helpme I've just tried to list an article for deletion but am finding the process rather confusing. I used Twinkle incidentally. It seems to have worked but the tag at the top of the article, Elise Harris, shows the wording "this article's entry" in red as if the page didn't exist, however will link to it if clicked. Is it ok or is something amiss? Have I missed out part of the process? Doddy Wuid (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's normal - depends on if you purged your webpage cache and if the new page is available on the right servers (probably). So long as you can click on it and it takes you to the right page then everything should be in order. Fæ (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've learned something. Doddy Wuid (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

help me2
helpme I have a |somewhat paranoid ad hominem diatribe directed at me for questioning the notability of an article. The (single-edit) editor responsible states that they know the subject of the article in question and that of another article I have tackled, evidently thinks it is a personal matter on my part and that they know who I am. It isn't and they don't, although I feel that on principle I shouldn't have to declare that. (Both articles had appeared in the edit history of an ISP editor, some of whose edits seemed in need of attention.) Nonetheless they are airing theirs and somebody else's dirty washing on a talk page. I'm not sure what the best course of action is regarding this but thought I'd call it to the attention of someone demonstrably neutral. Doddy Wuid (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally I would ignore them (if it is "them" with the WP:SPA, it might just be one person)- Don't feed the trolls - any reply is likely to be met with another diatribe. It's sad that they put so much effort into writing all that, rather than adding some good content to the Article.  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the good advice. Another aspect that concerns me though is that there are some pretty specific and unpleasant, possibly libellous, attacks and accusations levelled at the main subject (or suspect as I guess they see it) of the attack and several others mentioned therein. They're detailed enough that the subjects may be identifiable. Do WP:BLP type rules apply regarding potentially libellous material on talk pages? Doddy Wuid (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like they've had the same thought...nope someone else actually. Doddy Wuid (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure if that addresses the issue or sweeps it under the carpet? Doddy Wuid (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It should. Frozen Wind  want to be chilly?  00:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has clear policies and guidelines about personal attacks, harassmentand any comments about living people - this does apply to talk pages, see WP:BLPTALK. For any further incidences from a drive-by IP editor, feel free to use an or post to WP:AIV.

For ongoing issues (with an editor), see Wikiquette alerts.

For bio concerns, post to Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.

If you come across any nasty comments about a living person that need to be removed, please could you send an email to oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org - don't discuss it on-wiki, but let the oversight folks take care of it, for reasons that should be apparent. Cheers,  Chzz  ► 00:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice. Doddy Wuid (talk) 06:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

recreation of AFD-ed article
I've just noticed that an article which I nominated for AFD and which was deleted on the 12th October has been recreated (as Elise V. Harris rather than plain Elise Harris) by one of the major contributors to the deleted article, User:Alwayssoma. I'm sure this is forbidden and that the article doesn't have to be AFD-ed again but don't know the correct course of action. I imagine the editor in question ought to be set straight as well. Doddy Wuid (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I asked an admin to check and yes, it was the same, so it's been speedy-deleted under criteria G4.  Chzz  ► 23:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Doddy Wuid (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

My errors
Thank you for correcting some of my errors. I'm slowly working through the night and probably into tomorrow (feb.9th) to correct and put back in things better written. Thanks for the links as well, it's nice to see people helping others. :)

TiffanySayuri (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That's ok. Doddy Wuid (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

RE: Revision of Article Garrison Cap with specific reference to the term "Forage Cap" as used in the British Army
My source is threefold. First 38 years in the British Army to date. Second "Dress Regulations for the Officers of the Army 1900". Third is current Dress Regulations of The Rifles (just one example) available online. I do not know how to 'cite' these and find the process of doing anything here very complicated. Perhaps you could help? A forage cap has a peak and is the coloured hat worn with (No2/Service Dress) by most (but not all) English regiments of the infantry, the cavalry (less RTR) and the Corps. Those who do not wear the forage cap wear a beret (e.g. RTR).

Can you post some pictures of the Austrian (FSC) and Torin Caps if I send them to you by email? (FROGSMILE (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC))

Opposition to your CSD
Hello. On Intimate relationship I noticed you tagged it under G11, which is unambiguous advertising. I have disagreed and removed it. It has been replaced with a PROD. If it is removed, we can continue to AFD. 43?9enter (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I was beginning to have second thoughts about my assessment of it being G11 myself. Clearly it does have other issues though. Doddy Wuid (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ...Intimate relationship skills actually. Doddy Wuid (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Unsure about copyright
I've been helping User:FROGSMILE in making some edits and citing references to the Garrison cap article. The user also has a collection of pertinent photographs. I've been trying to work out whether they'd be okay to use from a copyright point of view but, even after having read up on relevant policies, don't feel that I can say with any confidence. It would be a shame to say no needlessly. Their talk page discussion from around the 14th March gives the background.

They have asked if I can seek guidance for them. Who could I ask to help them? Is there a copyright help desk or task force for instance? Doddy Wuid (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Great helping and also asking. You want Media_copyright_questions = WP:MCQ. Ocaasi c 22:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks! Doddy Wuid (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Nisar shah
Hello Doddy Wuid. I am just letting you know that I deleted Nisar shah, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Doddy Wuid (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate your forgiving stance
Regarding the unfortunate start by new user Cwands, I appreciate the words of encouragement you gave that user, now that someone is coaching a bit. User is doing excellent work culling and formatting sources. I hope the slight miscommunication between us doesn't dampen your interest in watching this cleanup process. I've posted an update or two at the noticeboard where I first saw your interaction with that user. BusterD (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

removal of unproveable material.
I have removed the quote from the New York Times because the reporter just writes it but does not offer any proof for his statement. Just quoting/citing from another source does not make that source beyond reproach. Any person who puts up something without checking if the original author is able to support the position has a agenda other than the truth.(Liewrecker (talk) 00:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)liewreckerLiewrecker (talk) 00:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC))
 * The Bat Ye'or article states that Smith "referred to her as one of the "most extreme voices on the new Jewish right."", which he demonstrably and citably did. The article is making the point that this has been said about her, making no value judgement as to whether this is justified or supportable. Doddy Wuid (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Alex Day (2nd nomination)
Hi Doddy Wuid. Because you initiated Articles for deletion/Alex Day, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Alex Day (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Reindustrialization
This article has been PRODded before, in 2009, and dePRODed, so per WP:DEL it can't be PRODded again. You will have to take it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah ok, thanks. Doddy Wuid (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

MiszaBot archiving
I've attempted to set up MiszaBot archiving and it is working insofar as it is removing old threads but I had understood it would archive them to, in the first instance, User talk:Doddy Wuid/Archive 1 and, I had assumed, provide a link to this archive from my talk page. This page doesn't seem to exist and I'm not sure what has happened to the material which was removed. I've re-read the HowTo again but am not any further forward, I'm afraid. Doddy Wuid (talk) 11:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The archiving template has to each parameter on a separate line, not everything on one line like you had. The HowTo explains this, and it is also explained in #4 on User:MiszaBot/Archive FAQ.  I have fixed the template and also restored the old threads that were removed, so the bot will archive the threads correctly to an archive page the next time it runs.  --Mysdaao talk 14:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for that, I hadn't realised I'd screwed up the formatting, having just copied, pasted and changed "Example" to my user name. I'm still unclear as to where there's reference to or explanation of this in either of these places though. Thanks. Doddy Wuid (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Still trying to suss it and I'm even more bemused as the template you put in place is so different to what's in the how-to but if it works, that's the main thing. I'm going to see if I can link to my archives now but I'm still unclear about that... Doddy Wuid (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad I could help. To answer your questions, User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo says, "The bot expects to see only one parameter per line. The closing }} must be on its own line. There must be no leading spaces before the pipes. If you drop out the newlines used in the above example, e.g. by wrapping the template invocation onto a single line, the bot may not do what you expect." in the section "Setting up archiving".  All I did was change the template you put on your talk page to have each parameter on a separate line.  It looks exactly like Example 2 on the HowTo page except with your username and the parameters in a different order, which makes no difference.  --Mysdaao talk 01:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Doddy Wuid (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)