User talk:Don4of4/Archives August 2011

August 2011

 * Thanks, Don4of4. Please help put protection to the Article about Datu. There are attempts to erase certain sections by some, for assertions not directly relevant to the argument.--TLS MMM (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to remove any such edits, but I do not feel that the page requires protection due to the insignificant amount of edits. If an individual continues this behavior, fell free to leave a message here and I will apply a warning to their account. Don4of4 (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks again.--TLS MMM (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Don! Attached is a note I gave to an editor, which might be advancing certain agenda, by deleting certain well documented parts of the article "Datu". Please help resolve the problem:

For RDAndrew

The previous editions that you have undone shows a more complete picture and topics about the subject. Please present your suggestions with corresponding references, before deleting any section. This is the second time that you have deleted parts of the article on Datu - parts which are well-documented. If there are contrary facts, please present them before deleting anything. If there are suggestions that are valid, well documented, from your part, I am sure that they welll be well considered. Articles should present facts that are related to the topic.

--TLS MMM (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what is wrong with the HomeSav wiki entry and why Gurt Posh flagged it for removal. I have removed the flag because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.94.12.136 (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. If the article is added upon (to make it significant), it should be fine.  However do not remove the deletion tag.  You must discus why you disagree with it on the articles talk page. Don4of4 (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am editing it right now and trying to find more references. Thanks for your help, please let me know if you have any suggestions. Thanks Don4of4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.94.12.136 (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow

Billboard Hot 100 50th Anniversary Charts

 * "I think it's a decent article" is not a reason to keep. See WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:PRETTY. Ten Pound Hammer, [* [Special:Contributions/TenPoundHammer|his otters]] and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you read my full comment, I said "The article clearly needs cleanup, but I think it is not only a decent article, but it's completely notable.". Meaning I though the article had potential AND satisfied Wikipedia A7 requirements.  ~ Don4of4 [Talk] 19:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Right now you're saying "it's notable because it's notable". What makes it notable? I see no secondary sources, the cornerstone of WP:GNG. I see nothing to clean it up with. Don't say "oh, it just needs cleanup" unless you're going to a.) clean it up yourself, or b.) prove that it can be. I see this all the time in AFD. People pile on with "keep, but clean it up" and five years later, nobody touches the damn thing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem angry. :( Regardless, I will address your points. To "clean it up" the lists would need to be removed and the article generalized.  I agree that the article needs citations, but deleting it is not the answer.  Billboard maintains one of the most popular music rating lists and is worthy of a wiki article.  Actually, this article would be best merged with the main Billboard_(magazine) article. I shall propose that... ~ Don4of4 [Talk] 19:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow

CSD template removal
Please see my edit summary. Note: the second part isn't directed at you particularly. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It does not meet WP:NOTE requirements and should be deleted under A7.  Plus, this probably is an autobiography. ~ Don4of4 [Talk] 04:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are misunderstanding the criteria for A7: they call for a credible claim of importance, not notability per some guidelines or policy. And being possibly autobiographical has no bearing on that. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you are. Quote from A7: "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization ... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" Regardless I am going to pass this to some administrators to get their opinion. ~ Don4of4 [Talk] 04:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? "credible claim of importance" and an "indicat[ion] why its subject is important" is the same thing. There is no notability in there, no reference to WP:N, nothing of the kind. Feel free to ask other admins; this one has, he thinks, a valid reading of the criteria. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, someone else disagreed with you. "This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference." Don4of4
 * They deleted it for a different reason, so they disagreed with you. I never said it shouldn't be deleted--I BLP-prodded it. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For the Record: It was deleted for G11 - Self Promotion. (mentioned above)  22:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow

Your signature

 * Please fix it; it is causing there to be a line break before your name and after your talk link, which messes up the formatting. If you are not sure why it is doing this, then maybe paste the code located in your preferences here enclosed in   tags, and I should be able to help you out. Logan Talk Contributions 17:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest I need help. I am very familiar with html and wikicode, but for some random reason the wiki software keeps encapsulating the timestamp with   tags.  The code for my signature is:

Don4of4 [Talk]

Thanks, Don4of4 [Talk] 17:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And now it works!? (CONFUSION) Don4of4 [Talk] 17:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Testing 17:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it was a bug. Ok. Thanks for the notice though.   17:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Please make sure you subst your signature in your preferences, like this: Logan Talk Contributions 17:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * However, a better option than that would be to just paste the code from your signature subpage in your preferences so that it can't be vandalized. Logan Talk Contributions 17:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the code is too long, so I thing the sub-page is a good move in this case. (It keeps the conversation more readable) I should just get it semi-protected. Thanks!  17:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, per WP:SIG, transclusion of templates in your signature is forbidden. The code  Don4of4 [Talk]  shouldn't be too long for the signature code box in your preferences.  Please do so, rather than continuing to transclude your subpage in your signature. Logan Talk Contributions 20:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I swear I looked there for a rule like that. (I expected it) I guess I was being blind. :P In any case, I have made change.  Thanks for the tip!  Don4of4 [Talk] 23:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Military of the DRC
Please be careful when you make these changes. The 'typo' you fixed was actually the proper spelling of the title of a book in French, which I've had to reverse. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh no... I really checked for things like book titles.  It must have slipped in. (I was on a rampage last night with over 700 typo fixes.)  Anyway, thanks for the heads up.   22:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Gunmen's Blues
A film not being in the stores is not a criteria for deciding a film's notability. The film was the very first film by a notable director. This and other information found in sources have been used to expand the article. Might you perhaps reconsider your delete? Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Per policy WP:NFF this point is partially mute. "films produced in the past which were ... not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines." My vote stands.  23:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to make too much a point of it, but WP:NFF is not a policy, and is in actually only a small WP:NF subsection of the over arcing notability guideline WP:N. Both WP:N and WP:NF allow consideration of other factors beyond film being "released", and for me, the common sense of considering a notable fimmaker's very first film as being worthy of note is within the spirit of guideline, specially as it is viewable by the public, has a distributor, and is being covered in multiple sources in historical context. I appreciate your having commented at the AFD. Thanks,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I respectfully disagree. While the work should be mentioned in the directors article, I fell it is not notable enough to earn it's own article. Considering the director, Eric Red has a rather short article (<15 lines) I think this should be merged with his main page.  Don4of4 [Talk] 01:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That us a reasonable suggestion. And I agree that the director's article will benefit by expansion, as there are many sources available upon which to base expansion. Could result in a decent DYK nom too.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Netball GAN
Hi Don. Thanks for working on the GAN backlog. However, I have some questions regarding your review of the Netball article. They are located Talk:Netball. I am hoping you could give examples of some of the shortcomings you have found. Cheers AIR corn (talk) 04:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Relevant information have been added as you requested. I suggest starting with a copy-edit, and then move the to WP:SS issue. With those two out of the way, the article will be much improved.  Don4of4 [Talk] 05:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Don, your recent edit to Talk:Netball accidentally reverted several edits by myself and others. I've reverted your edit, and am going to try to restore what you had added while preserving the previous ones. -Pete (talk) 05:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I rollback your reverts and it was only a VERY minor conflict. It was easily fixed.  In this case your revert was more harmful that necessary.  Don4of4 [Talk] 05:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for taking care of it! I was in the process of doing that..was just notifying you, not criticizing. At any rate, it all looks squared away now. Thanks. -Pete (talk) 06:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse my sharp tone. It's 2:00 am where I live and I am very tired... Actually am going to sleep now... Well here's a emoticon to lighten the mood:  Maybe a couple more...  Anyway I will check back in the morning.  Don4of4 [Talk] 06:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, when I looked back I saw my edit summary was a little sharp too..clearly I was suffering from late-night-ism as well. At any rate I think we're on a good track now. Thanks. -Pete (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey Don, can you explain what "References need to be in order" means? The references are in alphabetical order, which seems to be proper for "short citation" style. Do you mean the order in which they are cited when there are multiple citations for 1 sentence? Please elaborate at the GAN page. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That has already been done. Thanks  Don4of4 [Talk] 16:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry, but I can't find any explanation of the references issue. Your note references two guidelines: "[2][8]". 2 says not to use both inline citations and parenthetical referencing, which the article doesn't. It uses standard "short citation" style consistantly. And there is no 8, so I don't know what that is referring to. Kaldari (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This issue has already been fixed! Thanks  Don4of4 [Talk] 17:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry I misunderstood. Kaldari (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Kaldari, it was just a matter of the numerical order of the citation numbers. At the end of some sentences with multiple citations, apparently, there were numbers like [8][2] (as opposed to [2][8]). Sarah straightened it out. -Pete (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Mayo v. United States
Hey there. I'm glad to see that I have a reviewer for the my nomination, and so quickly too. Some of the sources I use in the article are paywalled journal articles. Just send me an email if you don't have access to them and want to take a look at the articles. Best, NW ( Talk ) 23:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Typo fix reversion
Hi Don, I've reverted your typo fixes at List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach. I didn't get the same numbers when I searched for the second time, but the principle still stands. Graham 87 01:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for the heads up.   Don4of4 [Talk] 01:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've also reverted your typo fixes at Phase II feature requests/Interface and user preferences because it is for all intents and purposes a talk page archive. Please be more careful in the future. Graham 87 13:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto for most of your other typo fixes in the Wikipedia namespace. Graham 87 13:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism of the Article "Gobernadorcillo"
Hi Don4of4,

Please be informed that User:Δ vandalized an article on Philippine History of 6 June last. the Articles name is "Gobernadorcillo".

Thanks.--TLS MMM (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

May I also point out that User talk:121.1.55.85 also vandalized the article on 21 July 2010.--TLS MMM (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the alert, however User:Δ did not vandalize it. He only fixed a picture.  Don4of4 [Talk] 21:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
(Just in case you aren't watching it) Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)