User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive I (up to 11 Oct 09)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
KuyaBriBri Talk 21:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Formatting
Hello there; have a look at Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co or Balfour v Balfour for a standard format. It'd be nice if you could follow this in your occupiers' liability articles! Also, you might find this interesting or useful: have a look at OSCOLA for the proper citation and punctuation method. Best,  Wik idea  10:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tags
Hello. Please avoid using rationales for speedy deletions that are not actually part of the policy. You are tagging little stubs which could simply use expanding. Most of these articles you've been nominating today wouldn't even come close to being deleted if they were sent to Articles for deletion. More importantly, aggressive speedy deletion can really confuse and frustrate new users. Please consider expanding the articles ever so slightly instead of tagging them and leaving them behind. Best, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Deprod
I have removed the prod tag from Anagnina (Rome Metro), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! Classical geographer (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

cases
HJ, I do hundreds of these things. My format is keep it short. When someone is reading, they don't want excess words. Just like they're unnecessary in an essay, a problem question, or a skeleton argument, they're not necessary here. Look again at my changes. I don't think I actually took out any information.  Wik idea  09:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Multimedia ebook
It was my intention to recommend the article Multimedia ebook for deletion. It was added by an editor who already had another article on similar topic evaluated and deleted. I don't think it can be "fixed", partly because it overlaps with other Wikipedia material, and partly because it relates to a company that may not be making a particularly distinctive product. Let me know if my further input would be useful in one way or the other. Piano non troppo (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Emergency service
I replied to your comments on emergency services on the talk page there. Regards, OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 14:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Skateimpact
Interesting case. It is written like spam and it was indeed deleted once after an AfD discussion. Yet the article would undoubtedly survive AfD this time around given the fairly good coverage that the company seems to have received since. The best thing to do is to just strip down the article to remove all the promotional stuff. Be merciless: spam has no place on Wikipedia. But the article itself probably deserve to survive. It might also be a good idea to contact the creator of the article so that he understands what's happening and with the hope that he'll continue to build the article with the no-spam principle in mind. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Devon air ambulance
As per your request, i've given it a quick look and managed to find some good references and done some copy editing. If i get a chance i'll do some more, but feel free to ask if you want anything more specific done on it. Regards, OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 17:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * replied to your comment on my talk page. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 20:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Chris. Hayes
Just a talk page lurker chiming in on the message you left at User_talk:Gjr_rodriguez. Chris. Hayes is blank because it was moved to Chris Hayes (baseball). Because of the period after "Chris", the admin who moved it didn't leave a redirect (implausible typo). HTH!-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  18:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

When prodding
Just a friendly reminder to use an edit summary when proposing deletion for an article. Edit summary usage is always good, but it is especially important that edit summaries are used when proposing deletion. The reason for this is that articles proposed for deletion that later have the prod tag removed should not be proposed for deletion again, but rather sent to Articles for deletion. The only easy way to check if an article was previously proposed for deletion is to look at the edit history and the edit summaries people have left before. Thanks! Hiding T 10:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The article Karippaparambil, has now been deleted. However, you added the prod 01:11, 11 April 2009 with no edit summary.  Hope that helps. Hiding T 09:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Sorry, I missed at first that you requested I reply here.  LadyofShalott  Weave 16:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Another reply on my talkpage...  LadyofShalott  Weave 17:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

From Skymasterson
I just got a message from you relating that you left something for me on a Discussion page somewhere, and while I vividly remember your name, I have no idea offhand (it has been a long day) which article you're referring to. Clue me in and I'll certainly have a look. Thanks for writing to me. Skymasterson (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

StarStruck (Season 2)
You sent to me: Firstly, may I ask why you blanked your talk page? Secondly, I've left a few comments on the talk page of StarStruck (Season 2) that you may find of some use with a view too improving the article. Any questions or anything, please get in touch on my talk page. Regards, HJ Mitchell (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Am I not allowed to delete my talk page? If I'm not, I'm really sorry... I didn't know. Second, about the article. I've put informations that are only available in the internet and I can't seem to do anything anymore to improve it. If you can do the improving, it'll be lovely. Also, I cannot put references in the article because the show's already done and it seems that the articles/news about the show was already deleted. I can't find any references in Yahoo nor Google. I got those informations from the old version of StarStruck (Philippine TV Series) article. I just applied the informations in different articles in their own respective seasons. Celester Mejia (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Boomkat run boy
I didn't understand the comment you made. Did I do something wrong? I just wanted to create the page for the song, because I love the band and the song :) Sue what?? If there's something hugely wrong, you can delete it. -lollomonkey1
 * Sorry, I missed your message at first and I should, perhaps have been clearer when I left you the message. It could use a little expansion, that's all. I'm not going to nominate it for deletion, it seems OK as it is, though the "track listing" section is empty. It just needs a little expansion and perhaps a few more links to and from other articles, otherwise, a more zealous editor might just slap it with a deletion tag on notability grounds.
 * However, if they do, drop me a line here and I'll fight for it. HJ Mitchell (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nominations
Hi, a number of your recent AfD nominations appear to be incomplete. You need to make sure that you follow all the steps at WP:AFDHOWTO. I've fixed Articles for deletion/Suddenly at Midnight (and improved the article), but can you have a look at the rest? Cheers! PC78 (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries, a bot appears to have sorted them out. I assume after adding the AfD template you clicked on the red link to create the discussion page? The template should also have a blue link to "Preloaded debate" - you're better off using that instead. After that you also need to add the discussion to deletion page for that day. It's pretty straightforward, just follow the instructions and you can't go far wrong. :) Regards. PC78 (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Rental accessories & Attachments
Thanks for your edits, I'll try and improve my article writing going forward, any advice gratefully received! I don't know if you could give me some advice? There isn't very much on Wikipedia about equipment rental industry which is an industry worth about 34bn$ in the US alone, I was wondering whether it would be reasonable to create a category for Rental, and then subdivide into property rental / car rental / equipment rental and build up some sub-categories... or is that going too far? Aardvark1685 (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome, I didn't do an awful lot but formatting and wording, but I'm happy to help. Don't take this as an expert opinion (far from!), but I would be inclined to say that's taking it a little further than it needs to be. My best suggestions would be the lead section- a nice, snappy start that explains exactly what the article is about. It is a little vague and difficult to pick out the key theme. I'd suggest finding examples of rental companies and adding in relevant information such as annual turnover etc, but make sure you cite sources and perhaps get some stats on categories, but not in real detail- for example, crane hire is worth X amount a year, complete with WP:RS, just to demonstrate notability and relevance. I can deal with SPAG and formatting, so just add it in as you find it, cite it and I'm happy to jig it around and make it look nice! Anything else, just get in touch. Happy to help, HJ Mitchell (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Country music
The "help!" link in my signature links to a tasklist with some country music tasks you can do. Basically, just about every country music article that isn't GA (sadly, there're only three or four, including one which I wrote). Alison Krauss is great, but she shouldn't be the only country music FA on the whole project. As for my RFAs failing, the first several mainly dealt with my overzealousness at deletion discussions, which I have been trying to rein in. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 18:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Shame, I don't know you, but I reckon you couldn;t have done too bad a job of it! It would be unfair to mention names, but I've seen serving administrators act in a manner far more unbecoming. If you run again, drop me a line, I'll fight as hard as I am at the minute at AfD for Chronology of Star Wars! Who knows, if you're not in tenure by then I might nominate you myself, but I don't think I'm experienced enough to be doing things like nominating admins just yet, much as I like to get my teeth into a good debate! I'll take a look at some of the country music stuff and see what I can do. I'm sure we'll have dealing s again in the future! HJ Mitchell (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Billy House
Thanks for taking the time to contact me about the Billy House article. Actually, everything in the article, such as it is, came from imdb since there's practically no information about the guy anywhere else. I was working on the article for Orson Welles' "Fountain of Youth" television pilot and House was the only actor in the cast with no article so I decided to do one. Thanks for the comments, though. I've written god knows how many articles (all of them better than that one) and I've got to sit down and learn Wikipedian inline citations one of these days. When I look at them, they seem dizzyingly and almost preposterously baroque to on an Edit page, not that I've ever done more than glance at them. Skymasterson (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome- it's always better to drop someone a line on their talk page rather than just nominate an article for deletion. If only everybody thought that, though! It would make wikilife so much easier- but then, half the time, nobody bothers to reply to my comments, so, one wonders, what's the point? Anyway, I digress- Billy House! I hate to say it, since I disagree with WP:N, but if you can't find anything more on him than imdb, then he may not be worthy of an article (see my user page for my opinions on the policy), though, perhaps, with some dredging, you might be able to find something tangible. I've got some time later, I'll google him and see what comes up in the back pages. Might be worth googling some of the films, there might be something there that wouldn't be as conspicuous in the other search.
 * As for the citations, they do look complicated, but I think that's more our esteemed fellow wikipedians trying to look clever than anything else. You just have to hit the button on the far right of the row where you have the options for bold etc and then just copy and paste the website or book into the highlighted bit. Don't be overly concerned with it on this article, if you find any good information, just put it in, list all the sources and I'll tidy it up later- I seem to specialise in turning random collections of information into wikipedia articles- you should've seen the air ambulance pages I link to on my user page!
 * Get in touch if you find anything else, and I'll do my own searching later and just leave me a note if I can be of any more help! Best, HJ Mitchell (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, HJ. I have no strong feelings about the Billy House article one way or the other; just the fact that he was a very offbeat actor in Welles films makes him rather an object of curiosity (you can't watch "The Stranger" without wondering about him), and I didn't really spend more than a minimal amount of time on that one, obviously, so I imagine there's more out there.  I'm almost positive Welles talked about him in his sensational interview book with Peter Bogdanovich entitled "This Is Orson Welles," for example, but my copy is buried in my closet.  By the way, I was surprised to see that you added to the "Colt .45" article since I was just looking at that again for the first time in months a day or two ago.  I'm very happy to see someone add some inline references since they tend to slow down the bullies who comb through the encyclopedia blithely deleting articles, knowing that with only a five-day window, they'll almost certainly be gone before anyone realizes what happened.  Some guy named Otto something-or-other attempted it with two articles about episodes of Maverick, the extraordinarily famous and talked-about "Shady Deal at Sunny Acres", the plot of which was ripped off by the movie The Sting (a fine film), and Clint Eastwood's appearance on the series as a cowardly villain in "Duel at Sundown," an episode that will be looked up in Wikipedia generations from now because it's such a unique turn by Eastwood, and in a western (it was just included as an extra on the latest DVD release of "Unforgiven," in fact).  Astonishingly, I coincidentally happened to look at these articles the day after Otto marked them for deletion (a million-to-one shot) and immediately spoke out on the Discussion page about it, apparently curbing the deletions.  Anyway, I'm going to eventually try an inline notation in the wake of your kind tutelage  (you'd never know I was a history major, with all the footnotes and attributions that entails).  Skymasterson (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I hate to see a perfectly respectable article deleted, though there are those who are more zealous than I with the deletion tags. They are supposed to notify you if they tag one of yours- there's a template to copy and paste- and they should leave an edit summary, too, so that'll show up on your watchlist if you check it. If you don't get that, you can always go to an admin and they might restore the page, on the promise of it being improved. I'll have a look at that one and perhaps a few others and see what I can do- like you say, the odd inline citation can make them think twice before tagging it. HJ Mitchell (talk) 08:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Another thing we've all noticed is that, once an article is created, it often seems to gradually grow in leaps and bounds as various different people come across it and add something; I've sometimes even seen relatives and friends of the person an article is about start contributing bits and pieces until eventually it becomes rather comprehensive (nobody's been knocking down any doors or wearing out any keyboards to expand the Billy House article, though, admittedly). I remember some apparent descendant of Inga Arvad, probably the only woman to sleep with both Adolf Hitler and John F. Kennedy, chiming in.  Many people seem reluctant to create an article for some reason but happy to contribute to one.  I think This Is Orson Welles, the Bogdanovich book, is probably a good Billy House source and maybe I'll have a look soon when I'm in a bookstore.  Oddly, when you first wrote me about it, I'd entirely forgotten both the article and who House was.  Another thing about having articles about obscure but intriguing people like House is that if they're mildly interesting, someone might see him in Welles' The Stranger, and look him up in Wikipedia out of curiosity, and it strikes me that a major aspect of Wikipedia is that it could lend itself to having information about someone who'd be tough to normally find very easily, as opposed to ubiquitous (within limits, of course).  Anyway, thanks for giving me some insights about Wikipedia; I must've written hundreds if not thousands of articles but there are some basic things I obviously still don't know--that tendency to jump right in without consulting the instruction manual, I suppose, which only happens with me on Wikipedia (when I'm putting together something that comes in a box, I usually read the manual first to spare myself as much anguish as possible).  In any case, I'm very glad that we've become acquainted: it's a privilege. Skymasterson (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, though apparently Channel Tunnel is an exception to that- the page goes untouched for a week, then two IPs come along within a few hours and vandalise it. I'm not sure if you've checked my credentials, but I checked yours and it seems you've been on here a fair while longer than I have! I wouldn't worry though, if you can find decent information on somebody, stick it in. The great thing about wikipedia is someone like me will come along later and make it look pretty. Before I noticed that vandalism though, I was improving a series of baseball articles that make Billy House look like a bed of roses! It is indeed a pleasure to make your acquaintance, though I'm sure we'll have dealings again before too long! No doubt I'll end up patrolling your latest creation or some such! Get in touch if you get any controversial prods or AfDs- I'll be glad to stick my oar in! Until then HJ Mitchell (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Terowongan Casablanca
I agree that its a pity the original author has seemingly ceased work on this article, but I did some digging and was able to find at least one in-depth English review and found many others in Indonesian(?) language. if you re-visit the article you will find it now much improved.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's good to see someone taking more interest in Terowongan Casablanca than the original author seems to and it is a pity that it has apparently been abandoned. It's certainly in a much better state than it was when I nominated it, though I'd still say it needs some work and, in all honesty, would not feel able to endorse a keep resolution in the AfD. However, it would be good to work collaboratively on it and perhaps we can move for a speedy keep if we can bring it up to a good standard. HJ Mitchell (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well... I can use Google Translator to check the none-english sources to see if any are news articles. And then per guideline provide translations of any text used. I suppose the show is most notable for being so terribly bad (chuckle)... like the guy who walks out of the men's room and does not realize he's dragging 30 feet of tissue stuck to his foot. He maintains dignity without understanding the chuckles.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh... a "speedy" would be indicative of a faulty nomination... and I believe yours was made in absolute good faith. If you opine it is better and express concerns, that would perhaps encourage more help from others.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds rather complicated, but go for it! I think notability is established (whatever form it takes!), the rest is just a case of adding a little substance to the article. I'll have a look either tonight or tomorrow and see what I can put in there. Good work! HJ Mitchell (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And thanks for clearing that up, it was good faith, though perhaps, in hindsight, mistaken- I think I may have seen one too many dilapidated South Asian film articles by the time I reached that one I wasn't being overly diligent with the ref checking. I'll put a note on the AfD to a similar effect just to put it on the record. HJ Mitchell (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And I just discovered that even though the film was terrible (from English standards), it made enough of an impression there that the screenplay itself inspired a book of the same name, which only two years later is at libraries throughout Indonesia and even archived in Cornell's Asia collection diff. Who woulda thought? And I can fully understand the frustration that is sometimes felt when someone adds a stub and expects eveyone else to improve it. In this case... it was done... I think :)  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

- Indeed, I think collaborative editing is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but there has to be something there to start with! This user seems to have created a few dozen of these, ridiculously short articles on obscure South Asian films. I dealt with a good number through the NP Patrol then thought enough was enough and went through all his contributions. One or two of the articles seem perfectly well written or notable, but I tagged a fair few and I think this might have been further back in the list!
 * It's good to hear that it's had some effect, that makes it easier to find sources etc! HJ Mitchell (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Send me the list that has you concerned. I'll take a stab at bringing them into line with en.Wiki.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of them can be found from onwards, most, I think would not get too far at AfD, though one or two had some potential but no substance. The few that actually looked like respectable articles, I didn't tag. HJ Mitchell (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll stroll through them. Have a nice evening. (4 PM here)  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

She's My Kind of Rain
I usually give benefit of the doubt to any single that's hit Top 10 on the country charts. It was a Top 40 pop hit as well, so I'd say there have to be sources out there. As it stands, She's My Kind of Rain is a decent stub. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 20:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a couple sources, and I'll keep looking for more. (Maybe you can help? Almost all the country music articles are crap.) She's My Kind of Rain got a Grammy nomination, which is certainly an assertation of notability beyond chart performance. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 20:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, I'm cleaning up baseball articles at the minute. Not because it's an interest, more because I lent some diplomacy to the situation and nominated a few of the worst for deletion. I'm always after a new pet- project so I'll give you a hand when I've got a few of these looking like articles rather than jumbles of infoboxes interspersed with the odd tangible fact! HJ Mitchell (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I know its getting late there...  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Not sure if you checked... kelapstick (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

She's My Kind of Rain
Hello HJ Mitchell, "She's My Kind of Rain" although not a number-one hit, was a #2 hit, which is high enough to deserve an article. A song this high, to me, doesn't really deserve to be deleted. There is enough sources on it for it to stay. Almost every Tim McGraw song (single) has an article, except for his first three singles, which were not even top 40 hits, so they don't really deserve an article. I created a number of articles on his singles including the one that we're discussing, and redirected his much lesser singles. "She's My Kind of Rain" is a notable song, so it should stay. That's all i can say for now. I will try to investigate the article myself, but i don't think it's bad. Thank you. Ryanbstevens (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined to agree with you which is why I left you a note expressing my concerns. If I didn't think it was at all notable, it would have been an AfD notification I left. My concern is that an editor more zealous with said tag than I might well nominate it due to its lack of references. It cites another WP article, in itself discouraged, which is only on a music database anyway. It needs inline citations and WP:RS so that information can be verified, since what is there is good content and it's a shame to see a brought down by something so trivial. HJ Mitchell (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

ECW UltraClash
Hello HJ. When you stumble upon articles such as ECW UltraClash it is a better idea to add the missing context than to tag the article for speedy deletion. Note that given the infobox and given the table of results, it's pretty simple to figure out what the heck the article is talking about. Best, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not going to try and pretend that this is a great article or that I find the subject even remotely interesting. But I'm pretty certain that this would be kept at AfD: it's a well-known wrestling organization and the event involved notable wrestlers (not that I have any clue who they are). Nevertheless, these articles with limited information on events/people/places/albums of limited importance but part of a wider coverage (in this case, this wrestling promotion and more generally professional wrestling) are of value. Individually these articles seem like useless junk but collectively they contribute to coherence and comprehensiveness. It may make more sense to merge this article into a longer one covering the various events but frankly, I (and I suppose you) have better things to do. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit request
Hello, there. I am contacting you because you say you're a copyeditor. Would you be interested in copyediting Tessa Noël which is currently a good article candidate ? Have a nice day, Rosenknospe (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply ! Please feel free to do anything you feel necessary to make the article better. I already did all I can, now I need someone with a fresh look. Also, I'm a non-native English speaker, so I probably left some blatant mistakes ;D Thank you for your time, Rosenknospe (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You're quite welcome (makes sense to keep the conversation in one place, btw!). I've had a fiddle with the intro. There's nothing major in there, just random commas. I've changed a little bit of the grammar as well, but the main thing it lacks, especially if you're going for GA, is references. For example, I'm sure it's blatantly obvious she was the first main character to die, but it still needs a reference. Nobody cares what the reference is, if the key facts are well referenced, the odd shakey citation should slip by as long as it's there. HJMitchell   You rang?  13:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello again. You're right that facts should be referenced, but we don't need to do that in the lead if they are referenced in the body of the article (as outlined in WP:LEAD) which is the case here. That's because the lead is actually a summary of the article. Would you mind reviewing the rest of the article as well ? I like the changes you did so far. Rosenknospe (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, that had escaped my attention. You learn something new every day! Of curse, I seem to have caused some disruption to an RfA, so I'll have a more thorough look once I've made sure that's cleaned up! Rather embarrassing really! HJMitchell   You rang?  14:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, don't worry. Nobody's gonna remember that tomorrow. Rosenknospe (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I've just done the next section, so far, so good. A few little bits of grammar and more commas, other than that, the only thing is the episode titles, which are in speech marks (""). I've changed them to italics ( ) to distinguish them form the main body of the text.There may well be some wiki- policy or other that says your way is better, if so, feel free to change it back, it's just a personal preference- it makes it look neater in my opinion. I'll have a look at the next chunk in a mo. HJMitchell   You rang?  15:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the two fact tags you left with references. Quotation marks are indeed used for episode titles (WP:MOSTITLE, a nice read to fall asleep ;) in order to differentiate them from series titles. Don't bother about it, I'll replace all of them in one go when you're done. Better avoid edit conflicts right now. Please go on, you do a good job ! Rosenknospe (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, as soon as I typed it, I thought there would be! And I meant to mention those, but since they've got references now, there's no need. My understanding of the GA and FA criteria is that it essentially boils down to "reference it, reference it, and reference it again"- I doubt the reviewer'll check each citation, but they'd be quick to seize on an unreferenced paragraph- not that I'm an expert, I just do the SPAG and make it look pretty! HJMitchell   You rang?  15:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And you do that pretty well ;D And you're right, better have an article over-referenced than being sorry. Rosenknospe (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Precisely, don't leave the technicality "I don't like it" brigades with a leg to stand on! I do my best. Nearly finished. HJMitchell   You rang?  17:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Go HJM, you show us ! *cheerleaders* ;D Rosenknospe (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was interesting. One of the bigger challenges I've been set in a while but I think I've got it up to a good standard in terms of the format and grammar and, with 72 references (!), with one for every statement of fact made, I don't see why it shouldn't make GA. Apart from what I said above, the main fault, which wouldn't loose it too many points, is the citations. If it's possible, try and stick them at the end of the sentence, it just makes it easier to read and a LOT easier to edit! Other than that, I think everything's in order. HJMitchell   You rang?  17:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I won't do it again, I promise ;D Thank you very much for your time and effort, I really appreciate it. Here, have a barnstar !


 * My pleasure :D Unfortunately I don't have any other GAC planned in the near future, but I'll keep your offer in mind. Enjoy, Rosenknospe (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: COM's RfA
You split Cirt's oppose, I assume this was unintentional. Thought I should let you know. Thanks, — neuro  (talk)  13:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I do apologise. It was unintentional. I think people were queueing up to oppose this particular RfA and I kept getting edit conflicts so pasting my comments back in must have been a little sloppy. I assume it's been fixed? HJMitchell    You rang?  13:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I put it back. :) — neuro  (talk)  14:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

AVT
I notice you like taking part in WikiGnomeish tasks like correct tyops typos. You may be interesting in the live spellcheck. -- The New  Mikemoral  ♪♫ 19:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

-- The New  Mikemoral  ♪♫ 19:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Once more. -- The New  Mikemoral  ♪♫ 21:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Let me know if I got anything wrong. kelapstick (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Sapna Babul Ka...Bidaai episodes
Hi, just a quick note to let you know that twinkle did not complete your nomination of List of Sapna Babul Ka...Bidaai episodes and has only added the afd tag to the page (I'm pretty sure it's a known bug). Usually twinkle only fails to list the AfD (in which case DumbBOT lists it), but in this case it didn't even create the discussion page therefore losing your rationale for deletion. If you need any help completing the nom, let me know, regards, ascidian  | talk-to-me  21:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks for getting in touch! Note to self: never trust a computer! I should have double checked, I just figured it would sort itself out- it's taken a few minutes to update before. Damn thing! It's sorted now though, I've created the rationale, added it to today's log and left the authour a message so all should be OK now. HJMitchell    You rang?  22:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Linglewood Lodge entry - thank you
Hi HJ Mitchell - thank you for the help with the entry. I'm new to Wikipedia but am working toward making links. I actually have a guest list that I would soon like to add to this entry and link to their Wiki entries (George H.W. Bush, etc. types).

Again, the reach out was much appreciated - I will let you know if you have any questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaseutley (talk • contribs) 14:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That could certainly be of use to the article and it would go a long way to establish notability. A word of warning though- make sure you can back it up! As long as you've got a reliable source, it should all be fine. I'd suggest "building the web"- if you link to HW's page, for example, see if you can stick something (subtly) into that page linking to this article, though an article of that magnitude, I'd suggest discussing it on the talk page first to make sure it goes in the right place! Like I say, anything I can do to help, you know where I am! HJMitchell    You rang?  23:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

AFD Re-opened
As you are an editor who had been involved in the Afd discussion of Jennifer Fitzgerald, I'm here to let you know that I re-opened the discussion on the article to gain a stronger consensus. After some discussion with a few other editors I agree that I may have closed the article too hastily and that further discussion is necessary before a final decision is made. Best wishes, Icestorm815  •  Talk  19:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Fabrictramp |  talk to me  14:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

More Billy House
The work you did on the Billy House article is superb, HJ. Thanks for turning your attention to that one. As I mentioned before, the thing that makes an article on House worthwhile is that when you watch The Stranger, you wonder about him. Your kindness has made my morning. Skymasterson (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * More has been added to this article, if you'd care to weigh in.  Czech Out   ☎ | ✍  17:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
kelapstick (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Article rescue
I'll try to help out as I can. As is true for all of us, it's something to do as time permits, but feel free to call me in anytime. Mandsford (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the discussion's got a while to go yet but it would be nice to get it up to a standard that we can be assured of a "keep". Since when has "I've never heard of it" been a test of notability anyway?!? HJMitchell    You rang?  20:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What we've seen so far is that there have been quite a few combinations that may have seemed unlikely because of the location of the two countries, but turned out to be quite notable. Chile-Estonia relations; Cyprus-Pakistan relations; Romania–Singapore relations; Ireland–Zambia relations; Brazil–Vietnam relations; Thailand–Ukraine relations; Canada-Haiti relations and Bulgaria–Sudan relations are all good examples.  In each case, though, they had to be rescued; not everything can be or should be.  I look at a nomination as a one-week long opportunity to educate people, including ourselves, about two nations; and I think it's a more practical approach than trying to fashion minimum standards that will still be argued endlessly.  I have zero respect for Groubani/Plumoyr who cranked these articles out every two minutes; he or she didn't care about whether Ireland and Zambia had a relationship.  Rather than keeping all of that vandalism, or throwing out the wheat and the chaff together (depending on point of view), I think that nominating these articles for deletion has gotten them more attention than they would ever have had from 100 committee meetings.  Mandsford (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I hate to admit it but you're probably right. I'm sure some of them are utter tosh but some, like this one, are quite worthwhile. I probably wouldn't have found it in order to launch my impassioned plea! I've learned more about Argentina- Pakistan relations in the last few hours than in my life! I'm sure it'd be easier to be a deletionist, but if I can save the odd article, it makes all the difference. HJMitchell   You rang?  00:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * One observation I make every now and then is that if you want to find the most interesting articles, you start at the AfD forum. Another editor once said something that stuck with me: the deletion debate should be looked at as a win/win situation.  Articles that can be improved often are improved; articles that can't be improved (i.e., the topic probably should not have been the subject of a separate article in the first place) are deleted.  Needless to say, if it looks like an article I like is going to be voted off the island, I save it on to my own computer.  Gotta go for now, but again, nice work on Argentina and Pakistan.  Who knew?  Mandsford (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, funny how that works out. I often just browse AfD in search of anything interesting- there's a lot of crap but you do get the odd gem of a crap article on a good subject. I mean, Argentina and Pakistan doesn't seem like the most likely of relationships but, as I've just proven, there is one! I found some stuff on the nukes that someone alluded to in the debate and stuck that in with a reference. I'm sure there's more if I just keep trawling through google and I'll peruse AfD and see if I can find any more of these. I agree with what they've done but not the way they went about it. Creating articles on countries with notable relations and giving only a titbit of information is one thing but creating hundreds regardless of whether they had relations is just daft. But, as with the minor league baseballers and no doubt every other time someone does this, its the community left clearing up the mess. HJMitchell   You rang?  12:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Disraeli, Quebec (city)
Hello, no, I was not planning to do more work on it. My focus was working on articles from the Municipalité régionale de comté des Appalaches, so didn't intend specifically working more Disraeli.--Andy28203 (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Before hastily adding a speedy deletion tag, in future please google search and assess whether or not the article can feasibly be expanded or kindly ask the creator to try to improve it first. Thankyou. Dr. Blofeld        White cat 16:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 1520 New Hampshire Avenue
I have nominated 1520 New Hampshire Avenue, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/1520 New Hampshire Avenue. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  APK  straight up now tell me  20:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha, yeah
It's a reference to the Annuit Cœptis / Novus Ordo Seclorum. I wanted the name Novus Ordo Seclorum but it was already taken. I'm really into a lot of that stuff (obviously, haha). Δnnuit  Cœptis  02:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised yours wasn't! If I'd been more inventive with my username, I might have taken it myself! Do you edit any of that stuff? My (very limited) knowledge is pretty much entirely from Dan Brown and wikipedia! It's certainly thought provoking! HJMitchell    You rang?  02:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, I don't edit any of that stuff yet. I'm fairly new here, so I'm still just trying to get comfortable with the site (basically all I'm doing now is patrolling Recent Changes and getting rid of redlinks). But once I get a little more comfortable here, I definitely will edit some of the stuff. I've studied it for awhile now and indeed, it is very thought provoking. Δnnuit  Cœptis  02:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm relatively new myself. The recent changes was how I found you- I was looking for vandalism and saw your name and figure "anyone with a username like that has got to be worth the time of day". Don't be too afraid to get right in there- if you make a mess someone will always come and clean it up later. Saying that, I don't create a lot of articles. I patrol new pages, recent changes and loiter around AfD and RfA and I do re-writes. Oh, and the odd bit for the Guild of Copy Editors. I'm good to know if you're one of those people who doesn't get along with the formatting! Anything I can do for you in future, do drop me a line! HJMitchell    You rang?  10:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, alright, thanks! Yeah, I'm pretty good with formatting. I'm in no way an expert, but I'm not terrible either. And yeah, I've been on a few talk pages to discuss the pages, but I've never actually contributed much to an article. But I am getting more comfortable with the site, so I think I'll start doing some re-wording and things like that now. Thanks! Δnnuit  Cœptis  14:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Old Speckled Hen
I think it's possible, and I'd be interested in working on it. But I wouldn't like to simply create a stub - I'd like it to be a decent sized article like the two you mention. SilkTork  *YES! 14:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if all we can come up with is a 3 sentence stub, it's better off where it is but I reckon we could get enough information and enough sources to merit a decent article. I put the message up at WP:Beer because you need more than one person on that kind of article. I'd probably follow a similar format to Stella Artois and others. I'll give it a couple of days and see if we get any attention at WP:Beer and then see what I can do. Thanks for getting in touch. HJMitchell    You rang?  15:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Fenerbahçe S.K. Achievements
I don't understand that how a list of all achievements of a sports club is unnecessary?.Why is that nominated for deletion.Original version is Turkish,so I translated to English for English version of Fenerbahçe S.K.That article belongs to Fenerbahçe S.K. article.Also,it is an informative article.Everyone cannot write achievements of all sections to a club article.I created a new page because of this.Rangond (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not the place for this discussion. I have expressed an opinion and the result will be decided by community consensus. My suggestion would be to express your opinions at the discussion page. At least there your opinions will be taken into account. I couldn't help but notice from your talk page that the article has been nominated for deletion before so you might like to take on board the criticisms levelled at it and improve it. Anyway, take it up at AfD- it's nothing personal I can assure you. HJMitchell    You rang?  20:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Rollback request


Hi HJ Mitchell!

Per your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Cheers, and happy editing! J.delanoy gabs adds 01:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback can only be used to revert obvious vandalism, not good faith edits.
 * Rollback may be removed at any time.

welcome
Welcome to the project. Ikip (talk) 05:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Tessa Noël
Hello there. Just a quick note to let you know that Tessa Noël, which you copyedited, is now a GA ! Please have your share of the pride ! Rosenknospe (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey! Way to go! I didn't do much but it's the first GA I've had anything to do with! If you ever need an article tweeking in future, you know where I am! Congrats, HJMitchell    You rang?  18:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem :D Rosenknospe (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Afd: 280 Slides
Hi, I'm the author of the 280 Slides article and I just became aware of its nomination as a candidate for deletion. Obviously, I'm somewhat protective of it, but I will try my best to speak from an objective viewpoint; to be honest, I don't know what kind of Google results you expect for a relatively new web application, but for me it 'throws up' glowing reviews from both Lifehacker and CNET, along with many others. Can you please explain your criteria for notable articles?

As for proper citation of sources, I'm aware that I could have done a much better job, but I'm still a new Wikipedian and I have much to learn. Maybe that would be a job for someone more experienced? Jordandanford (talk • contribs) 00:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC).


 * Hi, it took me a minute to catch up there. It was a day or 2 ago and I do all too many of these. What I suggest you do is go to the AfD entry and make your case there. With the lack of sources and lack of readily available material, I didn't feel I had a choice. However, the point of the AfD lasting a week is that everyone with an interest gets a say. If you can make a good case and come up with some more sources- the ones above are a good start, for example- people will rally round. My advice is to get yourself heard in the debate and add more information and more reliable sources to it! I'm not overly familiar with the subject so I'm not much help with the research but I'm happy to help put it into the article and the WP end of it. Good luck and let me know if I can be more use. HJMitchell    You rang?  17:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I like your work.
Care to help with format and style at Sean Power (actor)?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * From an editor such as yourself, that's praise indeed. By sheer coincidence, I happened to be browsing that very AfD. I noticed your invitation to Drawn Some to revisit the article. I'll see what I can do.
 * While you're here, I would be grateful if you could take a look at Gideon Glick and Remy Zaken and just cast your eye over them! I've done some work, particularly to the latter, though the AfDs don't seem to be attracting much attention. Regards, HJMitchell    You rang?  00:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was just there and agree with Mgm's assesment. Sadly and far too often, a narrow view of notability, ignoring the parent policy to concentrate on the sun-ordiant, is taken that excludes so many that would benefit wiki. It is the long-winded dissertations on the wrong partsof guidelinethat give an "sense" of worth to an argumentthat should include a wider view toward improving th eproject. Almost as if some editors feel like wiki is all filled up.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And note in the histories... the origial article was a long unsourced and spammy mess. The nom grants difficulty in a WP:BEFORE search due to the man's common name. So it was reduced in good faith to 3 sentences before being mominated. The current version is better than the original and impresively better than the 3 sentences that were sent to AfD.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding our friend Sean, I've had a brief look and stuck my oar in at the AfD. I'll look in more detail in the morning (you have a habit of catching me in the small hours!). The sources are good, though I haven't checked them and it is, alas, quality not quantity (contrary to popular opinion!). What the article lacks is a date of birth (always helps!) and it could do with being tidied up so his most notable roles are obvious. I'll see what I can do at a more sociable hour.
 * As for the other 2, it seems we move in very similar circles! This particular editor seems to have nominated the entire cast of a particular play and copied and pasted the "rationale". If more attention were brought to them, I think it would easily be a keep, but as they are, I fear they might be going out the back door- I asked Drawn Some to provide a list and I'll try and dig the rest up if he doesn't come through. Until the morning, HJMitchell    You rang?  00:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Only 5:30 in the afternoon here in SoCal. A nice sunny day. I'll take a look at other articles to see if their nominations have any validity. Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
 APK  straight up now tell me  18:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD
Since you are interested in Pomona College you might want to check out this AfD of a professor's bio: Articles for deletion/Frederick Sontag. Borock (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you for the barnstar you no doubt deserve one in return, I am also expanding a large bulk of these lately so often I just have to leave links in appropriate places and hope someone gets to them. You did a splendid job and the image is a nice touch as well.- Marcusmax ( speak ) 22:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am horrible at anything template related, once in a while i can do a little but otherwise I am awful. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 22:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Bilaterals et al
On this string of AfDs, my first reaction was to see each one as a challenge and try to rescue the ones that seemed possible. I did a few, got a bit addicted to them, did some more. It is interesting to take an obscure pairing of countries and see if a reasonable article can be constructed. Often that is possible. A harmless game, with maybe a faint smell of synthesis. I have no strong feelings on whether this type of article in general is good or bad. I prefer that all articles go through the normal filters - verifiable, notable etc. I don't like special rules, hurdles, exceptions, and cannot expect that most editors will recognize them. Best if the articles with non-trivial, well-sourced content remain, and the others go. A lot of these pairings are trivial - nothing much to say.

But I was looking at the debates on the article and project pages, which often seemed to say "I think this is boring" or else "this is automatically interesting". I don't accept either argument. And I was also wondering about the motive of the editor who created a lot of the stubs and the sheer amount of work involved. A shame to see all that effort wasted. Then I began thinking about the effect on a new editor who wants to start an article that has been deleted. From personal experience they know a lot about the deep and complex Indonesia-Bhutan relations over the centuries, for example, and want to contribute their knowledge, but when they decide to start the article they get a lot of forbidding messages that seem to say that the Wikipedia community has decided this is not a topic that should be included.

If I had time, and I am very short of time right now, I would make 200 articles, one for each country, with a table for all the "relations" articles for that country, and salvage the content from the stubs into the tables. At least all the work from the editors who researched the stubs would not be wasted, and maybe if the stubs were turned into redirects they would not get deleted, so would not turn into red flags. But I am very busy right now. Sort of depressing. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more on the verifiability and notability. A good number of them don't have a hope in of coming close to WP:GNG. If two countries can't even be bothered to send accredited ambassadors, I'd generally say there isn't a relationship- at least not something to justify an article in its own right. Where I think the efforts of Ikip and others are invaluable is the borderline cases where there isn't enough for it's own article, but it's worthy of recognition. "Bialteral relations of Country X" is a great place to put them.
 * I've commented in dozens of these AfDs over the last few weeks and almost every one that's come up over the last week. I stumbled across Argentina-Pakistan (new pages patrol I think) and thought I'd try my hand at article rescue. I've had some heated arguments with editors voting "delete" either without reading the article or just on an arbitrary "let's get rid of all of it". It's always amusing when somebody points to Russia-US or UK-US! The ones that irritate me are the editors who argue to delete it in the face of any improvement- almost as if it were desperation to prove themselves and their noms right! All we can do is hope the closing admin utilises common sense!
 * It was good of you to get in touch- I've seen you around but until now I could never place the name (I edit all over the place- RA, NPP, RC, AfD, RfA etc, though I'm focusing on these atm). I look forward to working with you in future. HJMitchell    You rang?  18:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at Argentina-Pakistan, and couldn't remember doing it. But it seems strangely familiar. Very much like some of the ones I did do, only better researched and written. Yes, obviously a lot to say, and more will be added. Then I checked the discussion. I'm positive I saw that before. The same editors, exactly the same arguments. Very strange. :~)

Maybe I will do one or two of the list-type articles. Mindless in a way, but perhaps sort of satisfying. People seem to like lists and maintain them. Even if there is not much to say about the relationship between a particular pair of countries, certainly not enough for an article, I see no harm at all in an entry in a list that says they established relations in 1964, the one has an embassy in Libreville and the other has a consulate in Lusaka, and gives links to their websites. The list is more than the sum of its entries, giving a sense of the overall activity.

But I am a bit of a random editor too. Sometimes I see an article with an odd name in AfD, check into it, decide it is interesting, expand it, and then start checking further into related subjects, adding or expanding. So I may wander off the topic. But I am sure we will see each other around. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I suspect if you'd looked at any other slightly controversial AfD around that time, you would have seen pretty much the same few editors presenting the same few arguments- irritatingly refusing to recognise the validity (or otherwise) or their arguments! I think Argentina- Pakistan gained a bit of attention to start with but it rapidly descended into a pissing contest between myself and another editor, at which point I should probably have taken a step back but I got a little... impassioned and a bit protective of my work! Nigeria- Pakistan went slightly better though and I got a barnstar for it!


 * As for the lists, I think they're a great idea. For a lot of these you can just about dig up "X acknowledged Y's independence (and existence in general, for that matter!) in 1964". That and the briefest of sentences would seem to go well in "diplomatic relations of X". I might do some myself at some point. The ones we need most, I think, are probably Luxembourg and Ireland- I've participated in a lot of their AfDs, most of which looked to be heading for delete or merge. Drop me a line if you want a hand- or if you see anything else interesting! HJMitchell    You rang?  21:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI
Deletion of Bilateral relation pages despite ongoing merging effort Ikip (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Azerbaijan-Romania

 * Sounds like a deal to me. I hadn't looked yet for anything on Belarus and Finland, but that seems like a no-brainer too.  Mandsford (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I couldn't get it on Google news this morning because it was down for maintenance-- rather than me describing it, I'll just have to say you'll have to see it to believe it. It's going to make it a lot easier to look for sources. Mandsford (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I did the due diligence and found a lot of crap- as I recall there was a "we acknowledge the existence of the other" and "we're thinking about considering possibly maybe talking about some kind of relationship (we think)" but nothing concrete! I was just about to work on this one when I took a look at Russia-US for idle amusement and ended up fiddling with that! It manages a NPOV pretty well for such a subject! HJMitchell    You rang?  18:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ralph Bakshi
Hi there. Could you take a look at the article Ralph Bakshi and work on the prose? Article is a current FAC. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC))
 * I'd be more than happy to. I'll have a look in a moment- I'm just finishing up a rescue of another article, but, for a FAC and since you asked nicely, I'll put it at number one on my priority list! Regards, HJMitchell    You rang?  22:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You commented on the third paragraph of the lead feeling abrupt - I added the years for Cool and the Crazy and Spicy City. Does it still read abruptly, or is this better? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC))
 * The sentence for the ratings of Spicy City was supposed to be supported by the Grant citation. I marked the references more clearly. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC))


 * Could you look at the list DocKino left at the FAC page and contact him directly in regards to the copyediting? Thanks. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC))

Articles for deletion/Vanessa Woods
I invite you to consider withdrawing your nomination. I found plenty on this person to cinch notability and its now on my "things to do" list.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to if you wouldn't mind explaining how! Anybody else and I'd say let it run its course, but, since it's you and I know the job'll get done, I'll do it later. All I need is to know how! Cheers, HJMitchell    You rang?  14:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What I believe might serve, were you so inclined based upon the expanded article, is a simple note at the AfD as nominator stating that you believe the article has been significantly improved to show notability and wish to withdraw the nomination. An admin seeing such, and making a judgement call based upon the improved article, might then be inclined to close the AfD. And thank you. Improving her article was quite satisfying. Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Opps. It just received its second non-admin closure. If it gets re-opened by someone who disagrees, you then might wish to chime in. Otherwise, thank you and happy edting.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, one might have thought they'd take head of the first one, but hopefully that'll be the end of the matter! Until the next time, my friend! HJMitchell    You rang?  14:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Pittcon Editors' Awards
Drgordonwilkinson talk • contribs 20:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Responding to your message
Hello. I have a copy of the old LP from the year 1965. All I do is provide what the LP provides for me and if I am able to find other sources besides the LP itself, I definitely include that info as well. Unfortunately, just the LP itself is all I was able to come up with. Thanks Jpete (talk • contribs) 21:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Marcusmax ( speak ) 01:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Guitar edits
The editor has three reverts of his work; I did not see a conflict between our warnings. It appears they were all merited by the Anon. Cheers. -- Storm  Rider  23:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

image feedback
Dungsniffer (talk) 03:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

copyright
I will respect your decision to decline speedy deletion of Alese & Morton Pechter -- however, did you notice that a large portion of the article was a copy of an obituary published in The New York Times? I do not see how that could conceivably be in the public domain. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Lucifugum
I'm a little confused on your speedy deletion decline here on Lucifugum. I requested a G4 speedy deletion because it's a recreation of the article that was deleted at AfD, but your edit summary on the decline says "There is some assertion of notability, thus, not an A7 I'm afraid- try AfD". One of us is confused, and it certainly could be me. Mind enlightening me?-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  23:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I do apologise. I'm just a humble editor trying to help with the backlog by declining unnecessary requests- few and far between, sadly. I couldn't find any reference to deletion or AfD in the edit history, which, I see now, was because the page was recreated. I operate on a "better safe than sorry" philosophy. Your "approval" (and I use the term loosely!) was rather ambiguous but, not being a repost, I would normally have changed the tag to one of the A7 templates, however, the references and material in the article seemed just enough to avert a speedy deletion. I would not be surprised if it were deleted at AfD (or via prod) but, with the greatest respect, I do not feel it was one of "the most obvious cases" for speedy. I hope this clarifies. If not, I suggest you delete it or put the tag back on and I'll let an admin decide, rather than take it off. Thanks for getting in touch.  HJMitchell    You rang?  23:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll replace the G4 tag then. The AfD discussion was linked correctly in the G4 verbage on the page, FWIW. -- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  23:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

File talk:Origin of Species title page.jpg
Hello. Would you mind clarifying how a blank talk page 'facilitates discussion' any more than a deleted one? I simply didn't see why we should leave the history up given that it contains nothing but blatant vandalism; and if someone has something useful to say in future it's just as easy to create the page again. Obviously it's no big deal on an obscure File_talk page, but I'd appreciate your reasoning for declining that speedy. Thanks in advance. ~ mazca  t 23:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all- in fact, I'm happy to oblige. My reasoning for that was that, really, there's no need to obliterate the talk page of a little- trafficked file. It's easy enough to just blank it. My other consideration was that in the (unlikely!) event that an inexperienced user tried to start a discussion there, they might be put off by the banner that says "you are re-creating a page that was deleted". All in all, it's not killing anybody as a blank and speedy is a last resort, so, I feel, it's better to just blank it and leave it rather than have just another page in the backlog at CAT:SD. That's just my opinion, though, and I'm not an admin so take it with a pinch of salt. Regards, HJMitchell    You rang?  23:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I take your point on a couple of the File talk pages I tagged - the ones that were clearly test pages aren't really doing any harm and can indeed be blanked with no problems. I do weakly disagree on the one linked above (generally I think real vandalism like that should be removed fully); but I doubt it's going to cause any real damage either way so I'm not going to bother pursuing it! Thanks for the response. ~ mazca  t 23:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you couldn't just speedy a talk page with genuine posts on it. I'd tend to agree on completely removing it and, if we weren't talking about a little trafficked talk page, I'd probably recommend deletion myself. I just think it's overkill, but feel free to disagree. HJMitchell    You rang?  00:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Lucifugum II
Hi there. The Lucifugum article wasn't tagged as A7, but G4 (recreation of deleted material). It's already been to AfD within the last month (and deleted). It has also been speedied repeatedly as such, as the log will attest. I'm happy to take it to AfD once again, but it does seem a little pointless. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My rationale is above, under Fabrictramp's post. I'm not an admin, so don't attribute too much to my opinions on the matter. HJMitchell    You rang?  23:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Had a look at links you suggested. None are reliable sources and the third appears to be a copy and paste job of the Wiki biog. Not sure which came first, but rather irrelevant, surely? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, the top of 3 got my attention. I'm not sure about reliability, really- on closer inspection, 2 seems interesting but the others not so much. They're not enough to establish notability on their own in all likelihood. HJMitchell    You rang?  00:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
- Dank (push to talk) 03:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Priit Karm
May I ask why you decided to place on the above article? The entire article consists of "Priit Karm is an actor"!! HJMitchell   You rang?  23:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it was create by Priit Karm. That's a conflict of interest. Eeekster (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, where is the conflict of interest?? I do not agree. The best words are the person's own words!! Please correct your mistake and start an article on my behalf. Priit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Priitkarm (talk • contribs) 11:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It may be a conflict of interest, but the tag implies that the article's neutrality is compromised by the COI. "Priit Karm is an actor" is a simple statement. If I said "HJ Mitchell is a Wikipedia editor", for example, my lack of notability aside, would you put on that? Try using it for situation where someone is obviously not adhering to WP:NPOV and seems to have a vested interest. The page was speedied anyway, so it doesn't really matter.  HJMitchell    You rang?  14:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Tanglewood Country Club
Hi - thanks for all the help. I am new to this. Any Photographs were ones I took and hold the rights to. The Logos are in the public domain and i beleive are not currently owned in any event. You mentioned you were trying to fix the image issues, please let me know if i should re-submit them.. thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikelaszlo (talk • contribs) 22:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome. I think I managed to save the images from speedy deletion. There's not an awful lot more I can do right now, I'm a little busy with another project. However, give me a day or two and I'll check back and do any little tweaks or anything and let you know if there are any problems with images. Meantime, if you have any questions, just ask. HJMitchell    You rang?  22:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:The Old Speckled Hen pub.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:The Old Speckled Hen pub.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Moldova–Spain relations
Can you help add references to Moldova–Spain relations? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Economic history of China (Pre-1911)
Huge article with lots of information, would like it to go on GA sometime. Can you help copyedit it? thanks.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the Josh Dies EP, Talons (EP) Page
I have added the cover of the album, and an cited the spellintg errors with an uploaded image of the track listing on the package. Is there anything else you'd like me to do? Raw Rawker (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Old speckled un.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Old speckled un.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 72.88.107.31 (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Old speckled un.jpg listed for deletion
Following your comments, I've declined the speedy, and opened a discussion at. PhilKnight (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)