User talk:F W Nietzsche

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Victuallers (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Edit summary

 * Whilst I do not disagree with your recent editing at all; your edit message - 'Rm cats - in subcats' - is frankly baffling to most Wikipedia non veterans. Just a thought. Best wishes,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Adrian Mitchell
Hi, Friedrich. Maybe you can help. Since I notice you've just done an Adrian Mitchell edit in its Categories section, do you know how to remove him from the People from Haywards Heath category? This should be, so far as I can see, People from Hampstead Heath or (since that probably doesn't exist) People from Hampstead.

Origin of this error was that, till this morning, he was articled as having been born in Haywards Heath. In fact, it was 'near Hampstead Heath,' as his webpage makes clear. Categories to me is terra incognita. If you can remove him from the Haywards Heath category (assuming, of course, he had no strong connection with the place) I'd be most grateful. Regards. Wingspeed (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. I haven't added a from category, as I don't know where he was actually 'from'; 'near Hampstead Heath is ambiguous, it doesn't state how near, nor in what direction from it. He was educated in different counties well outside London, so it is not clear from the article which 'people from...' category he should be in. F W Nietzsche (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Magic. Many thanks. New Year's res: learn about Categories:) Wingspeed (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Flowanda | Talk 05:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add any promotional material; I added a link to the only site that has free access for the general public to the birth index. It is not subscription only, subscprition is required for some records, but not to view the indexes of births in England and Wales from 1984-2006, which is the section in question needed to prove the info I added to the article. I do not have any connection to the site in question, I did not advertise or promote any organisation. I added the link only to prove the location of birth of her elder son, and to confirm the year of his birth, in case IMDb is not considered a reliable source. Anyone can access the part of the site I mentioned, as many times as they wish, at any time, witout paying anything or committing to anything. It is a reliable source, as it has the official birth, marriage and death records. Adding a link to the site in question was the only way I could prove the info I added; if I had added it without linking to the cite, it is likely I would have been told that I didn't cite my sources, and the info would have been removed as uncited. F W Nietzsche (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Article Talk
Please accept my apologies in regards to the Bagpuss talk page. I found it unclear whether or not you were merely discussing it, so I erred on the side of deletion. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Un sch  ool  14:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That edit of mine was good. Said edit consisted of the following to the categories: a) put them in alphabetical order - which is correct; b) added Russian immigrants to the United States - which applies; c) removed the category American Jews, as he is in the subcategories Russian-American Jews and Jewish American writers - which is right. Why would you believe that edit was anything other than an improvement to the categories section of the article in question? F W Nietzsche (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct, F W Nietzsche, I was mistaken, and have made the change to the article. What I saw in my quick glance was that you a) had removed a category, and b) had inserted the AIDS-related death.  (Insertions of AIDS issues into celebrity articles is an extremely common sort of thing for vandals to place in articles).  My erroneous revert would not have happened had I a) taken time to see how your edit summary explained what you had done, and b) re-read the article to find out that he had in fact died of AIDS-related illness (something which I had never heard when he died, and now that I have read the article, I know why) .  So, for the record, you were 100% correct, I was 100% wrong.  I also want to compliment you for taking the time to bring this to my attention through talk pages the way you did.  Un  sch  ool  15:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for showing that this was just a genuine misunderstanding on your part. Just to clarify though, I didn't actually add the AIDS category - I merely put it into alphabetical order. The only cat I added to Asimov was Russian immigrants to the United States. F W Nietzsche (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That makes sense; it just looked added in my overly-quick glance because it appeared then at the top. Looking at my browser, I actually thought that you had replaced the eponymous category with the AIDS category, which really looked vandalistic.  Sorry.  See you around.   Un  sch  ool  18:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Talkheader
Hi, I saw you added a lot of Talkheader templates to talk pages. It is not recommended to do that for every article though, only when it is needed. See also this discussion. Garion96 (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009
Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, and has been reverted or removed. All information in the encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable published source. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --NYScholar (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I added the original source of the article (Winer's Newsday article from 25 Dec. 2008) to the list of Obituaries and related articles section as a means of accommodating the EL that you added; but "throat cancer" is not correct and neither supported by the source or by Wikipedia's articles on esophageal cancer or throat cancer (which redirects to Head and neck cancer) [It did when I checked it earlier; now it goes to a disambig. page!], and I explained so in the talk page of the article.  I did add oesophageal cancer earlier in the lead. Our published reliable and verifiable sources do not indicate the official cause of death; one goes with what his wife and widow informed the press as the cause and that is "cancer".  Adding more specific categories that you are basing on your own [or others'] speculation is not appropriate.  Doing so conflicts with the template regarding living persons in articles about recently-deceased persons.  Everything must be scrupulously documented in such articles, including categories of death.  Cancer deaths in England as a category is accurate.  Please follow consistently the prevailing citation format of this article.  Doing otherwise introduces errors in it.  Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC) [Updated in brackets. --NYScholar (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)]

'X died after a struggle with Y' is a common way the media use to state that X died of Y, though it is not an explicitly clear way of doing so. It is virtually certain that Pinter died of oesophageal cancer - which probably metastasised. We know for certain that he had cancer in that organ, and have no real evidence that he had any other (potentially) fatal disease. The category Esophageal cancer deaths is a redirect to Deaths from throat cancer, which I why I added that category. Contrary to what you have suggested on here and on Pinter's talk page, I have not breached the BLP rules on Pinter's article regarding him or anyone connected with him, nor have I added any incorrect information to the article. F W Nietzsche (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your efforts. But "cancer" is still cited most frequently as what he died "from"; please see Talk:Harold Pinter, where one will find several explanations in response to your repeated changes (which have been reverted by me and earlier editors before).  There is no consensus for your edit.  Thanks.  There appears to be some conflict in Wikipedia about how to categorize deaths from certain kinds of cancer.  But there is no reason to embroil this article on Harold Pinter, a recently-deceased person with many still-living family and friends mentioned in the article, in any of those editing disagreements.
 * (cont.) Please see Esophageal cancer and how it is (currently) categorized.  It is (currently) categorized as a kind of Gastrointestinal cancer.
 * (cont.) It appears that there are,  were, or have been editing conflicts in Wikipedia among editors about these various kinds of (potentially overlapping) kinds of cancers and deaths from cancer (in general).  There may be a past or current problem pertaining to categorization of cancer deaths also involving what Wikipedia terms Gaming the system, which may have resulted or still is resulting in confusions about how to categorize some of these terms and the so-called disambiguation page created called throat cancer, as compared to Throat Cancer. [Note also that may does not signify must.]  The categories themselves with the redirections/moved pages may need administrative assistance.  I assume your good faith as an editor, WP:AGF, and I would like you to assume my good faith as well in trying to improve Wikipedia in general and this article specifically.  (For the record: It is not proper to "ignore all rules" when the result is not an improvement to Wikipedia.  See WP:LOP.) Thanks again.  --NYScholar (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC) [corr. of my own typ. errors.  Sorry. --NYScholar (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)]
 * FYI, in case you haven't noticed it, since you are still a relatively-new editor here: please see WP:Point and its related links. Thanks.  --NYScholar (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Throat cancer
Thanks for removing the apparent vandalism in the def. of "Head and neck cancer" (aka "Throat Cancer") in the disambig. page "throat cancer". I just noticed it after responding to you in the talk page of HP earlier today. --NYScholar (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Pinter article Mediation
Would welcome your input at Talk:harold Pinter. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternative Account
Are you using an alternative account besides this one? DFS454 (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of International Terrorism Since 1945


The article International Terrorism Since 1945 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This is not actually an article about a television show, as its lede claims, and it doesn't cite any sources to establish the show's notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 20:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)