User talk:Hibernian/Archive 2

Land Before Time Wiki.
Hello, User:Hibernian! I do not think we have spoken to each other before, but I noticed in the "What Links Here" page for User:Ye Olde Luke/LBT that you use the userbox on your userpage. Therefore, I presume that you are a fan of The Land Before Time, and/or its sequels and franchise.

What I am getting at is this: There is a wiki dedicated to The Land Before Time franchise, and though it is a Wikia spotlight, it is very short on contributors. If you are interested, you are welcome to join up with the Land Before Time Wiki community. I don't have time to go into details right now, as it is very late where I am, but if you are interested, we may discuss it later, here, on my talk page, or over in the wiki itself. So I'll say goodbye for now, and hope to see you then! Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don&#39;t mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 08:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, yeah I put that Userbox there really just to show a bit of nostalgia for that movie, I was definitely a big fan of it when I was a kid, but unfortunately I haven't seen the film in years. I don't think there's much that I could add to your Wikia, that isn't already on there though. Because like I said, I only have childhood memories of The Land Before Time and haven't seen it in at least 10 years, so there probably isn't much I could help you with. Sorry about that. Though now that you remind me about it, maybe I'll re-watch it sometime. --Hibernian (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, understood. But if you change your mind at any time, you're more than welcome to join. Until then, I bid you good day. Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don&#39;t mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

2009 in spaceflight
Hi. I've had to revert some good faith edits that you made to this article. Please could you familiarise yourself with the format of these articles before making changes that affect it. Thanks. -- G W … 08:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh? I thought I was familiar with it, I used to do some editing on 2007 and 2008 in spaceflight, but they had slightly different layouts then. The ISS thing is fine if that's been decided (although the UN flag is not the most appropriate), but why not link things throughout the article?, that's just a very strange attitude to me. I mean you've got dozens of red links in there, it looks badly done. And surely it can only be better to have links all the way down, especially on such a large article where you'd have to go back up to the top for a link to something, that's bad design in my opinion.


 * When I read through it, I find myself constantly having to open new tabs if I want to see if there is a page on a certain satellite, having red links or no links at all to something that does have an article, is rather ridiculous to me. In an article I would agree, things should only be linked once, but in a very long list like this, I don't think that rule should apply. It's very annoying to see something red linked that you want to just access at the click of one button, but instead you have to go scrolling up for ages to see if it has been mentioned maybe at the top, or do a search for it, it would be a lot easier if they were all just linked. --Hibernian (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The old articles were overlinked, and this was an attempt to cut back. I've got nothing against re-linking them in principle, as long as it is discussed first. There was also a proposal to link the first occurrence each month. I think the best place to discuss it would be on WT:TLS. As for the UN flag, it is the de facto flag of the world, so I can't really see a more appropriate choice -- G W … 18:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The process of linking only the first occurrance is abiding by the overlinking guidelines, especially since there is talk of taking 2008 in spaceflight to WP:FLC, where if everything was linked, there would be opposes for that reason. Also, that course of action was suggested with among other things the new format in a fairly-recent Peer review of 2008 which we have used to improve all TLS articles: Peer review/2008 in spaceflight/archive1 and WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight/Reviewpoints. -MBK004 20:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't remember seeing anything that says that redlinks are a bad thing. In fact, I've seen it written that redlinks encourage article creation. Also, there should be articles on each individual satellite so I also reverted you change that removed redlinks to individual satellites and replaced them with a general article. We are working towards having articles on all, see these: Astra 1KR, Astra 3A, Hot Bird 9, Eutelsat W2M, Venesat-1, AMC-21 as just an example. -MBK004 20:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland
Hello, as I'm interested in Ireland, can you sent me a mail at sb_paramount@undefinedyahoo.fr : I've some questions for you. Thanks Stef48 (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello

 * Hello since you are interested in ancient warfare, i would like to ask you if you would like to contribute here Dacian warfare.Thankou.Megistias (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Heads up
I responded to your comment in Archive 3 of the Nationalism talk page. Check it out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nationalism Kevin (talk) 07:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. You sure have a lot of user boxes. Homeworld's the best game ever? Them's fightin' words. :-P http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/homeworld/reviews/reviewerId,79410

Plane stupid
I have previously removed that photo as it is nothing of value except derogatory value to the subject of the article, it is a picture of a demeaning attack on mandelson and should not be in his bio,there is a link to the leticia dean article where the photo can be seen. please remove it from the mandelson biography. Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? Wikipedia does not care if something is demeaning, the event happened, it was shown on the News for days afterwards, it is notable, and we have a photo of it. I can see no logical reason not to have it there. --Hibernian (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The picture is of no value at all except as derogatory, it's a BLP and the picture is not adding anything of value is it? What does it add? Here is a photo of a woman throwing green custard at mandelson. What would you say is the value in it? Off2riorob (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your line of argument, it has value for the same reason that the event is mentioned in the article, it is a notable event that happened to Mandelson. If the event itself is of value to the article, then I can see no reason why a picture of that event would not also be valuable to the article. And I'm pretty sure that Wiki rules state that photos can and should be used (when available) to illustrate something. That is exactly what this picture does, it shows the event happening, simple as that. --Hibernian (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes the event is mentioned and that is enuf, the picture is excessive and of no added value at all except to demean the subject of a biography. As you can see I dispute your addition and request you remove and take the discussion to the talk page to check for cocsensus to have it in the article.Off2riorob (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It may be enough for you, but others may disagree. If you want to start a discussion about it on the talk page, go ahead, but I have to go off my computer now, so I won't be able to say anything for a few hours. --Hibernian (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As there is dispute, will you please take it out for now? Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Urbanate
I have nominated Urbanate, 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/Urbanate&. 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. LK (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Technate
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Technate. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Technate (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiBirthday
I saw from here that it's been exactly four years since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 18:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, cool. Thanks. --Hibernian (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Eurocoin.ie.100.gif
You added this image to Éire but it is a non-free image and you did not add/write a fair use rationale for this use. Can you please do so? Actually it is used in 5 article but there are only 2 rationales. If you are writing one perhaps you can write the others or remove the images. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I assumed as it as a piece of currency that is was in the public domain. Can't understand why it isn't, but whatever... Rational? Well I simply felt that as the article discussed the use of the word Éire on currency it would be appropriate to have a picture of said coinage. It helps the reader of the article visualise what is being talked about, simple as that. I've no idea how to actually write a rationale, as you are talking about, though. But anyway what exactly is the problem? I mean, are you expecting the Irish state (or the EU perhaps...) to sue Wikipedia over this? --Hibernian (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Rosin
Thanks for losing that gallery. Feel free to put the other pic back at the top; I just happen to like the one with the notes showing through the cake of light violin rosin. It was the lead picture long ago, and shows the brittle nature of the substance. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, if that's what you want, doesn't bother me, although I thought that the picture of the substance in its natural and unprocessed state would be best for the start. Anyway, I don't know anything about the subject; I just happened to come upon it and thought the pictures should be done better. You're free to do whatever you want with it. --Hibernian (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Minor change to Gliese 1 numbers
Hi RJHall, I was just looking through the Gliese 1 article and was trying to find figures for the star's mass and radius, etc. I saw that one entry was given for both, 48% of Sol, I looked through the history and see that you added this, but it wasn't cited. I then looked for the info here, and the Gliese 1 entry there says that the mass is 39% of Sol and the radius/diameter is 48% of Sol. This seems more authoritative, so I've added these numbers into the article and cited that page as the source. I don't know where you sourced the previous figure from or whether you meant to write it differently, so if you think this figure is wrong for some reason, then please tell me, or change it back yourself. If both the mass and radius really is 48% then that should at least be stated as two separate figures. It's a minor thing I know, but I thought I'd just run it by you to confirm. --Hibernian (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Hibernian,
 * Well I think the RECONS data is pretty authoritative, and they list 0.48. The mass value came from this VizieR search tool, which is also has pretty solid credentials. They list values of 0.46 and 0.48, depending on the technique. I'm not so sure about the stellar-database site; there is no indication of authority, just an e-mail address of some non-credentialed author. It seems a little dubious.
 * But it is always possible that a mistake occurred in one of these sources. This 2009 article lists a value of 0.45 for the mass of GJ 1. Thanks.&mdash;RJH (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I didn't see at first that you had cited the source in the infobox, I just read the figure in the text and it was uncited there, so I assumed it needed a better source (I just used that website because it was the first thing I could find). If you think the RECONS one is better then by all means use that. If you want to change it back to 48%, that's fine by me, but just make sure it's clear what both values are and that it's cited. I'll leave it up to you to fix it up, as I don't know the source you're citing. --Hibernian (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

King Fahd Causeway Article
Thanks for the minor clean up! Just how did you manage to move the picture to aside? Leave a not on my talk page. Once again, great job on fixing the article! Dhulfiqar 20:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spine.Cleaver (talk • contribs)


 * Ok, thanks. Well to move a picture to a different side of the screen you just have to add |left| or |right| to the image code. It looks something like this; [[Image:name of image|thumb|left|caption for the image]] . You don't actually have to put "right" in, because the software will automatically put it on the right by default. If you want to know more about the subject, you could read this page; Images, as well as all the other tutorial pages. Good luck in editing. --Hibernian (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

User page
I stumbled upon your userpage while looking for uses of a file I recently updated, and am thoroughly impressed with your userboxes (specifically those in support of regional independence and the right of self-determination). It's good to know that there are others out there that support the end to illegal and colonialist occupations of historically autonomous regions throughout the world. Mnmazur (talk)


 * Ok, cool thanks. I do indeed support the right of all peoples around the world to have self determination. Frankly, being Irish I think it would be impossible not to support people in the world today who are going through the same struggles that we went though for centuries. I didn't create any of those Userboxes though, and they are free for anyone to use, so you can of-course put them on your own page if you wish. Most of them can be found in the many subcategories of this page; Userboxes. Though a few were custom made by some people and my be hard to find elsewhere. --Hibernian (talk) 06:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Biased editing of Technological Utopianism by Loremaster.
Biased editing of Technological Utopianism by Loremaster.

Due to your past contribution to Technological utopianism, you may currently want to help editing the Technological utopianism article because currently only one editor is contributing to the article. The Singularitarianism Article could also benefit from your help.

I feel Loremaster is editing Singularitarianism and Technological utopianism in a biased manner in accordance with his Save The Earth propaganda. Loremasters's ideology seems to verge towards Neo-Luddism. Here are the damming facts Loremaster has stated in discussion:


 * Loremaster says he is:


 * Loremaster wants people to:


 * Loremaster sees his editing as a 'fight' and he states:

81.151.135.248 (talk) 12:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)JB

--Loremaster (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL
 * 1) Despite the fact that I openly admit to being a technorealist who is critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms, I have let never this point of view influence any of my edits or reverts of the Technological utopianism or Singularitarianism articles. On the contrary, I am the person most responsible for expanding the former article with content some would argue is “pro-techno-utopian” (i.e. passages from James Hughes' book Citizen Cyborg).
 * 2) I find it disgusting that 81.151.135.248 would take comments I made out of context to falsely make it seem I see my editing of any article as part of my fight for the environment.
 * 3) In light of this outrageous act of bad faith, I will do everything in my power to get this jerk banned from Wikipedia.


 * Look, I have no idea what this dispute is about, but it just seems like a lot of childish bickering, so I have no desire to get involved. I'm not an administrator or arbitrator either, if there's a case of bias or bad faith (or whatever), go and take it up with them. --Hibernian (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Howard Scott & John Gregory; CHQ, Rushland, PA.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Howard Scott & John Gregory; CHQ, Rushland, PA.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have responded here and here with reasons why it should not be deleted. --Hibernian (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hibernian, I suggest emailing your contact to to explicitly release the file under the CC license. Information on how to do this can be found here. (From your note, it seems that he may not understand that images on Wikipedia must be released under a license that allows use outside of Wikipedia, so that might be something to mention. I also might need more tea this early, so disregard if this isn't the case) --Danger (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I could try that, I have his e-mail address. Although I've no idea how long it could take him to respond. Is this really necessary though, he already gave permission back in 2007 and he was the one who told me to upload it under that license. Basically he told me the organisation Technocracy Inc. doesn't care about the copyright of these things, they're just happy to get them out there, the only stipulation being that it should be attributed to them. --Hibernian (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have an email in which he gave permission back then, that would probably be sufficient. --Danger (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * He didn't give me permission in an e-mail, it was in a discussion on the old technocracy.ca forums. We discussed it in detail on several occasions back then (2006/2007), but I'm afraid those posts no longer exist, as they were all deleted when that website was redone about a year ago. I suppose I'll have to e-mail him, and hope he responds quickly (though there's no grantee of that). --Hibernian (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok I've sent him an Email (several actually, as I have a few different addresses for him), so I will await his reply. I've got no idea how long it might take for him to get it, it might be a few days, at least. Is there a way to postpone deletion until I get a response? --Hibernian (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion won't be closed for at least 14 days and the pending-OTRS grace period is 7 days, so I think you've got at least 21. And if he responds later than that, we can always restore the file. Thank you so much for doing this. Cheers, Danger (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok good, that sounds like enough time. Thanks for the advice Danger. --Hibernian (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yoruba religion
Hello, Your recent edit on Yoruba religion has been reverted to a previous version. Kindly make use of the talk page for common discussion on the article. The article falls under the scope of Yoruba Project. Thanks for understanding and happy editing. Otelemuyen (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I have to disagree, that section was using clearly using unencyclopaedic language and was not neutral. I've reverted it back. If you have some specific reason why it should be as you've written it then present some evidence.


 * As you are quite interested in the article it is only fair on previous editors that you make clear your objection about a section or specifics on the article. It will be better you make such objection through the correct channels. Otelemuyen (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, since you've asked what is wrong with the article. Statements like "Yorùbá engage in a robust philosophy" and "The Yorùbá(s), refered to as being highly cultured and exquisite statesmen are spread across the globe in an unprecedented fashion" are totally biased and not encyclopaedic language (as well as being completely uncited opinion). Now do you understand why you can't have statements like that in the article? I've posted this on the talk page as well. --Hibernian (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As you are probably already aware that the issues you are raising about specific content on the article being a mere opinion or not being cited is (as i respond) unfounded. Maybe you would like to take the pain of actually checking the article in question for verification. Otelemuyen (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Wild boar map
Hi Hierbian.

Sorry for not replying to your message on WIkimedia Commons. I just missed your last sentence and I do not check my account there very often. Thanks for upgrading the wild boar map. CHeers,--Altaileopard (talk) 11:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, no worries, it's done now anyway. --Hibernian (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

June 2011
Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to National Liberation Army (Libya), as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". "Military" is definitely not a minor edit, so please only click "minor edit" if you're fixing punctuation or spelling to be on the safeside. Thanks.  Btw, I had an old phone that gave me Dublin, Ireland in the GPS whenever I'm in Dublin, California; I started laughing when I saw your userpage... :)     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  05:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I felt a single word is the very definition of a minor edit, but whatever. --Hibernian (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Number format
Please note that in South Africa the standard thousands separator is a space, not a comma. Please stop adding commas to numbers in articles about South African subjects. Roger (talk) 11:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm? I don't understand. In the article you cite, Decimal mark, it says clearly that South Africa uses the comma as its thousands separator. Besides, no matter what system South Africa uses I don't see any reason why the English Wikipedia should adopt that system for South Africa-related articles. I mean, we don't use 1.000 in French or German articles, why should we use 1 000 for South African articles? I believe the English Wikipedia needs to have a standard system, and since 99% of the numbers already use 1,000 I think that should be used everywhere. Has there been any previous discussion on this before? What is the official policy? --Hibernian (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Look at the article again carefully, the only time countries are specifically mentioned is to list which use point and which use comma as the decimal mark - the section on the thousands separator doesn't name any countries at all. As for the rest of your above post, you are totally contradicting the WP:ENGVAR rule. I have to wonder if you've ever even read that page. In short it says that articles about subjects that are connected to countries that have their own standard variety of English, the article must be written using that variety. The article about Abraham Lincoln is not written in Australian English and Tower of London is not written in Indian English so why should South African Army be written in American English? In other articles not related to such countries the "first major contributor rule" applies (the English WP is not concerned with French or German standards). Please read WP:ENGVAR and follow it. Roger (talk) 07:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think I understand what you mean. In all other cases we would use commas for the separator, but since South Africa uses its own form of English it is in a unique position of having the ability to override the normal convention. Ok, that's fine, I was not aware of that, I was just treating the South African separator as I would treat a French one, being incorrectly used on English Wiki. --Hibernian (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Ali II of Yejju
Hi Hibernian, just saw yr edit to this article. What depresses me most about your edit is not that I made the mistake in the first place, nor that I missed it when I made a revert in the article a few days ago, but that it sat for almost two years before someone noticed the error & fixed it! Either users are now even more reluctant to become contributors, or no one reads most of the articles I write. -- llywrch (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, don't worry, easy mistake to make and easily fixed. Ethiopian history is of course a fairly obscure subject (outside of Ethiopia), so not that many people will be interested in it, but that doesn't mean it's not worth having and working on (sum of all Human knowledge, and all that). I my self have been researching 19th century Ethiopia for the last few months for the rather strange purpose of game modding, if you can believe that. You see, I play this game called Victoria II, which is an in-depth historical strategy game set in the 19th century, it's generally very historically accurate, but the developers made a bit of a mess of Africa, so I'm part of a small mod team trying to rectify that by creating new African countries. Over the last few days I've been trying to simulate the chaotic state of Ethiopia during the Era of the Princes in the game, I'm actually going to make our friend Ali II of Yejju into a military leader in the game, existing at the start (1836). Anyway, I don't have any books which give good details about this era of history (something which I knew nothing about until I started looking it up), so for me Wikipedia has been invaluable, so keep up the good work! --Hibernian (talk) 04:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The bottom line is that there are few books about this era of history -- or Ethiopian history in general -- period. I've learned that from experience. And what few that exist are sometimes riddled with errors; E.A. Wallis Budge's big book on Ethiopian history, is one example. (I wish I could find a way to convince others this is one area we need an exception to [{WP:NOR|no original research]].) Anyway, there's a lot of information which I've been unable to add to Wikipedia on this topic, & due to various reasons I'll not bore you about I won't be adding soon, so feel free to contact me if you have any questions on this period. I'll be happy to share what I've learned. -- llywrch (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Names of the Irish state, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ierne (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rumors and urban legends regarding Sesame Street


The article Rumors and urban legends regarding Sesame Street has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all 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. --The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Gumuz people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uduk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Corrigan (surname), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Base and Passant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, don't really want this bot telling me things anymore. --Hibernian (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Extra blue links on disambiguation pages
Last month, on 12 February, in an edit on the Tamil (disambiguation) page, you linked the countries where the Tamil language is primarily spoken. Many editors are unfamiliar with the details of disambiguation page style. The guideline at Disambiguation indicates that Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one navigable (blue) link; including more than one link can confuse the reader. Such confusions can arise because the blue link does not always occur at the beginning of the entry, for example, where the term is subsumed in a larger article. This is the case on the Aurora (disambiguation) page with: That is why your edit was reverted by Icarusgeek with the cryptic summary dabfix - only 1 blue link per line. That is also why there are two separate lines for the Tamil people and the Sri Lankan Tamil people. --Bejnar (talk) 05:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Aurora, a surrealist novel by Michel Leiris

File:Admin-chart.gif listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Admin-chart.gif, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)