User talk:LibStar/Archive 4

Estonia–Luxembourg relations
Hello, I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Malta–Pakistan relations
I feel vindicated. Thank you. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  02:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Bilateral relations standstill
I intend to post this on AN later today (around 21:00 UTC). Please let me know if there is anything you would definitely object to or suggest changing. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Images in bilateral relations articles
I keep on seeing these images being removed in my various editing tools, and Denmark–Mexico relations was just the latest. I do understand your position on the subject, but I think that we need to seek broader input to see if there is consensus on removal of such images from these articles. As it stands I don't see any consensus that they should be removed, and there is more than enough here to argue about. May I suggest that the status quo on these images be maintained until we have agreement on a change of direction based on community consensus. Alansohn (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - User:Wizardawp
Please note: Minoan civilization. I just reverted a vandalism edit by User:Wizardawp. As you gave him a "last warning".............Best Wishes. WBardwin (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You & WP:AN
I mentioned you here on WP:AN. I hope you don't mind. -- llywrch (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright's and such
I don't know if you know about this stuff, but do you think there is anything wrong with how Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) often quotes all or most of the free preview of the articles he cites from paysites like newsbank.com? See for example, Czech_Republic_–_Iceland_relations. I'd take it up with him directly, but I'm unclear on the rules here, and so I think it'd be very counter productive to be like, "Oh hey I think maybe you're violating copyright law here....Oh wait, just kidding..." You know what I'm saying? If you or someone else thinks this practice is a problem, I'd be happy to mention it to him. Yilloslime T C  05:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Greetings
Thanks for your note on my talk page. I'm done here. Won't be logging on again. Just aint the place for me. Go well (bali).96.57.32.235 (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding canvassing...
...please note that I believe that editor has left Wikipedia per his last two edits being blanking of his user pages. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion
I'd suggest that you stop engaging with the other editor, and if you see vandalism, personal attacks or other negative behaviors, then bring it to an administrator, the anti-vandalism notice board or the administrator's noticeboard. Dreadstar †  03:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Something interesting
You may find this interesting. Note how quickly it was archived without comment. Drawn Some (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's very badPzrmd (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Responding
You nominated an article on a notable political party for deletion, and then leapt around from defence to defence with any attempt to reason with you. I'm not sure if you're either trolling or you're a twit - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with twit. Rebecca (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I take that back. Troll, should've seen it coming. Yawn. Rebecca (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Chris O'Brien
Yep, perfectly fine. Cheers, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

two things
Re your user page note on bilateral relations, although I have no strong opinion on the actual subject, I agree with you - we should only have an article on a subject if the subject is notable. If we have to stretch back double and do a somersault to make the connection between two topics, it is probably a form of synthesis (an adjunct to original research) to have an article on the connection. (Apologies for at first posting this on your userpage :P)

Secondly, Belgrave Heights Christian School came up in a bot search - seems to be entirely primary sourced and I can't find anything. What do you make of it? Orderinchaos 11:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Your request for rollback
After reviewing your request for rollback, 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 if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! Mifter (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback can be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback may be removed at any time.

Sinlge purpose editor
Hello, can you tell me what a single purpose editor is? I was just trying to help by mentioning potential sources for expanding that article, is that not allowed? Bookscale (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What if I don't have a conflict of interest? I don't work for them, I just know a little bit about it, that's all, and was trying to be helpful. Bookscale (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to. I'm sorry if I was not supposed to edit there. I thought suggesting some sources might be helpful to the discussion that's all. Have you checked them out to see whether they add legitimacy yet? I thought they might. Bookscale (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a policy on not editing particular articles first? I didn't see one, I'm sorry. Bookscale (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I just copied what I saw from other users. I didn't know about the policy. Sorry for inconveniencing you. Bookscale (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry. Please accept my apologies. Bookscale (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I just read the instructions. That's all. The buttons are at the top of the editing box too. Bookscale (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Krankenhouse Project
If you're going to nominate something for deletion, could you at least make the basic effort to spell its name right in the deletion request? Your quoted Google search was for "Krackenhouse Project" [sic].

I have to wonder how many other articles you have nominated for deletion with equally shoddy research. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   18:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I should apologize for my cranky tone above. I ought to have noted that the end result of your nomination was indeed correct, even if the nomination itself was malformed. All the best. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   15:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

foreign relations templates
Thanks but there is still a lot of work to do. Plus some editors are now restoring the merged articles. --Avala (talk) 11:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Altered Speedy Deletion rationale: Young Gays and Lesbians Around Moreland
Hello LibStar, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have deleted a page you tagged (Young Gays and Lesbians Around Moreland) under a criterion different from the one your provided, which was inappropriate or incorrect. CSD criteria are narrow and specific to protect the encyclopedia, and the process is more effective if the correct deletion rationale is supplied. Consider reviewing the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again!  So Why  11:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Opinion
I have been merging "Country X-Y" stubs into "Foreign relations of X" articles, basically to calm down the repetitive flood of futile debates in AfD over each relationship. Any opinion over whether this is the right thing to do? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I may keep going on merging the stubs - have done more than 3/4 of the job - but am a bit discouraged. When several editors revert stub merges but apparently have no intention of expanding the stubs, it seems that they just want to provoke more futile arguments in AfD that will continue to waste everyone's time. My view on any of these AfD debates is a) it is about the article, not the subject; b) significant content with reliable independent sources = keep; c) trivial content with no independent sources = delete. Same as any article. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See my talk page "Stop redirections without discussion". I will quit merging the stubs, since this is controversial, but will continue copying content into the tables in the "Foreign relations of X" articles. May as well finish the job. The content is "mere facts" so there is no copyright issue if the stub is deleted. Q. Do you think I should leave a link to a stub when it holds no additional information and is likely to be deleted? Or just orphan the stub? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong Brands and Products Expo speedy-delete declined
Hi LibStar. Just to let you know, I declined your speedy tag of this article. I didn't see anything overly promotional about it. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 03:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)