User talk:Lihaas/Archive 5

Vidal Sassoon
Hi, I noticed this but didn't really understand your edit summary. Per WP:BLP (which does apply to the recently dead) the onus would be on you to prove that the Daily Mail is a good source for the claim that Sassoon's father was a "womaniser" and that this is significant enough to include in the article. --John (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * actually dubious sources should be discussed/queried at RSN, and more so for marginally disputed sources.. Please dont remove them of itse;lf. The onus is on finding RS until proves as no RSLihaas (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No, actually if you read WP:BLP we take out dubiously sourced material on articles on living or recently dead people. The Mail has been discussed numerous times at RSN (here's a recent beauty) and has always been agreed to be a terrible source for this sort of material, but you may feel free to raise this there if you wish to. --John (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Germans
Hi. I found an error in the article (see photo). Copernicus was not a German, he was from Poland. --Top811 my talk —Preceding undated comment added 12:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

Template:Did you know nominations/Boudougate
Lihaas, could you please take a look at this nomination. You had originally objected to the condition of the article, pointing out that it needed a copyedit. I think that it's finally in good shape in that regard, and also more clear on a number of points.

Since I've done a bunch of editing, and Johnny was the one who wrote up the ALT, neither of us can review it at this point. I'm hoping that you can give it a quick review, and either add a tick if it's DYK ready, or specify what's left to do. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Template:Slovak parliamentary election, 2012
did you mean to call this Template:Template:Slovak parliamentary election, 2012? seems like one too many template: prefixes. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Notability of episodes; archiving this talk page?
Since the "Woody Interruptus" merger proposal has failed, and deletion is out of question at this time, I have started a discussion about developing a proposal about notability of episodes in WP:village pump (idea lab). Join in.

By the way, your talk page is getting longer. I wonder if this page must be archived properly. --George Ho (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Kribi lighthouse
A couple of responses were made to your comments about a week ago, but you haven't yet replied. I thought I should ping you, in case you missed them. I've added a few points of my own, which I hope help clarify the current issues regarding your DYK nomination of this article. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Home Is the Sailor (Cheers)
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Rebecca Howe.jpg
I wonder if you can add a rationale for this image. By the way, I have a better image, which I must upload:. --George Ho (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, here you go: Template:non-free image rationale. Never mind the struck image; this belongs to the Getty Images, which indicates that the struck image is profitable. --George Ho (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, the rationale for Rebecca Howe is separate from the rationale for Home Is the Sailor (Cheers). The rationale for that episode must be written in the image page. Do you know how? --George Ho (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this image merely identifies Kirstie Alley. There is no character representation indicated in this photo. It does not indicate her clumsiness... or the ruthlessness. There is nothing significant about this photo. I have a free use photo: File:KirstieAlley1994.jpg. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, this photo is replaceable by other photos, such as this. The non-free screenshot from this episode could truly indicate her debut, but it would also identify the episode, as well. No matter the rationale, there is nothing I can do. I was influenced by Hullaballo Wolfowitz's words about WP:NFCC and WP:NFC and images of people. Nevertheless, I think talking to you is good, so we can understand each other. --George Ho (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, any image from the Sailor episode has no episode title within, and image of Alley's first minute of appearance.... is replaceable, I'm afraid, as I changed my mind. What about the scene of guys spitting out the Screaming Viking (yes, I'm linking a redirect because... it helps more than typing an actual title. SeeWP:redirect) drink? As for the Howe article, as I said, any non-free still image of Alley that does not implicitly or explicitly indicate the characterization of Howe is replaceable. One expression or another... depends. What are images of Rebecca Howe (never mind Kirstie, anyway) that truly indicate either ruthlessness or the clumsiness of the character in your idea? --George Ho (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, WP:NFCC is very confusing to me. The free-to-use photo identifies Kirstie Alley, while the proposed screenshot signifies her first second of appearance. Maybe we can ask in WP:MCQ then, shall we? --George Ho (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already did in WP:MCQ. --George Ho (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As Masem said, a free-to-share image is more appropiate than a non-free image for illustrating Alley's debut, even if the image took place after Cheers ended. Using a non-free screenshot of Alley's first appearance would fail WP:NFCC. Using this promo image fails WP:NFCC, and a lack of explicitly rationalizing use of this image for the episode article fails WP:NFCC. --George Ho (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as Masem said, this episode has no episode title cards. Any scene would fail to pass at least one NFCC criterion. In other words, there are enough images right now, as there are no non-free images, and as non-free image is not needed at this time. --George Ho (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

One for the Road (Cheers)
I have in the talk page discussed the "Grammar" tag you added. --George Ho (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Bare urls
I don't understand why you are removing the references like this and just leaving bare urls. If you are going to use reflinks, why not do it in that edit? Otherwise you're just leaving bare urls for some time, and I think that should be avoided. Number  5  7  21:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Kris Johnson
Thanks for the feedback. I've responded at Template:Did you know nominations/Kris Johnson (basketball).—Bagumba (talk) 05:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Stuxnet edit
Hello, did you mean to remove the links to the other language versions of the Stuxnet page with this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stuxnet&diff=prev&oldid=495476077 Sancho 16:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

"Semi-retired"
Isn't it about time you took down the tag? =) --Khazar2 (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Answer
Don't lecture me, please You were disrupting my editing process and are doing it again by claiming that the defence ministry wasn't mentioned in the source. And what does NKR Defense Army’s press service mean? You didn't even read the source. What should I think now? --Reader1987 (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm retracting my accusation of disrupting, and will assume good faith. I believe it was all a misunderstanding. As I can see, we both agree on the merger proposal. Thus, I wish to enhance the article on that developing story, hoping (and believing) you will participate. --Reader1987 (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Clearly inappropriate maintenance tag on the article 2012 LinkedIn hack
Hi,. This is to notify you that you put a tag on 2012 LinkedIn hack saying that it is not notable. While I believe that Wikipedia is not for minor news, this is of worldwide interest and had created much controversy. Search on Google and you'll get reliable, significant coverage and third party sources. Thank you. Dipankan ( Have a chat? ) 05:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Nepalese Constituent Assembly election, 2012
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Me Haces Falta
Statυs (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed the line. Sorry it took so long, I was trying to find more reception first to be able to expand on it, but failed to. Bless, Statυs  (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Bing! Statυs  (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Blind reverts (for the nth time) and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT
Yet again I am forced to complain about your blind reverts. Your undoing of edits which were made using AWB also reverted fixes to the articles.

As for claiming there is "no consensus for wholescale unilateral changes", you are the only editor who uses "Result" as a heading, and you are the one who has changed almost all those articles in the first place without consensus (see here, here, here, here etc). I've tried to explain several times that "Results" is standard English (in case you've forgotten, please see the IFES Election Guide or the Inter-Parliamentary Union).

You contribute some good stuff to the articles, but some aspects of your editing (the two mentioned in the heading of this section) are very frustrating to deal with and do not make it easy to work with you on improving articles, to the point that I am close to starting a WP:RFC/U if this continues. Please try and be more co-operative. Thanks, Number   5  7  16:41, 13 June 2012 (ame here UTC)
 * Also, please note I am not the only editor to revert your unilateral belief that "Result" is correct. Number   5  7  16:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lihas

I came here after a discussion on my talk page with User:Number 57, who had asked for my opinion as someone with whom zie had recently disagreed.

As noted in that discussion (permalink), I agree with #57 that "results" is a better heading.

However, my main concern here is that I see what looks like an edit war, which is no solution. Please may I ask both of you to seek a wider consensus at a central location, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't misrepresent WP:BRD as you have at Talk:Greek legislative election, June 2012. The section was originally entitled "Results". Number   5  7  13:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I have raised the issue here. Number   5  7  14:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Swiss referendums, 2012
Just as an FYI, I've moved it to this title as I've just found out that there are some more referendums coming up (this week). As Switzerland has so damn many, I've taken to just creating one article for every year that has them. Otherwise there would be probably three or four times as many articles (you can see how many years have had multiple referendums by those that are starred on Swiss elections), plus the template would be unreadable (although I still need to merge the 2008 and 2009 articles into one). I was also very surprised to find that no-one else had started an article on the June referendums. Shame there is still no decent data available on the results of the March ones. Number  5  7  17:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Fuckme And The Case Of The Vanishing Entree notability
Hey Lihass. I just noticed that you tagged Encyclopedia Fuckme And The Case Of The Vanishing Entree with Template:notable. I reviewed WP:GNG before creating the article and although I could see how it might be a case on the edge, I felt that there were enough mainstream references to create an article about the visual novel. The A.V. Club, the The Escapist, and Pitchfork Media are all mainstream, non-niche sources; citing plot information straight from a game is commonly done in video game featured articles (i.e. in Halo 3). Do you feel that there just aren't enough sources overall? Nomader (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * On a side note, I removed the template from this article pending a discussion with you; if you feel that it doesn't meet notability standards, I'll bring it up as a note on the talk page and contact relevant WikiProjects. That said, I also removed the template you added on Go the Fuck to Sleep because it in fact does have a large number of reliable sources, including from The New York Times, CNN, The New Yorker, the Atlantic, and the LA Times. Nomader (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
The Bushranger One ping only 20:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Songjiang Shimao Intercontinental
Hi This article is wildly inaccurate. As the concept and chief designer of this project who is currently working on the detailed and construction information in Shanghai, I am most qualified to correct these inaccuracies. I would appreciate if my edit was reinstated. If you want to edit it yourself I can supply correct up to date information which is first hand not copied form other web sites that are just reproducing outdated information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martjo812 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Rodney King
I was agreeing with you, I think the paragraphs were a bit confused, but I was agreeing with you :) doktorb wordsdeeds 05:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Footnote format +; archive
I am intrigued and to a degree concerned about your footnote "remake" at 2012 G-20 Mexico summit. First you "clean refs for reflinks", then "Fill... in 11 references using Reflinks".

My big objection to your exercise is that we've ended up losing a lot of detail in the footnotes you "cleaned" away, including but not limited to the writers of at least some of the sources. That info can be restored within the Reflinks form, I know. But I'm interested in how you justify leaving the page so much poorer for your "contribution". Apparently just leaving it for someone else to "restore" should they/we so choose. Or, yes, I could revert. But you've put in a fair amount of work. Let's see.

More in the manner of a question is whether you are treating this Reflinks as "the only way to do footnotes" or if you consider this article as having been "already reflinks". I feel the article was not "already reflinks" because you "cleaned" every one of the existing footnotes, I think, before "filling" them back in. I have, as a reasonably experienced editor, been familiar with the two formats for footnotes. I'd thought I'd determined there was no "Wiki preference" between the two. There could be an "article preference" but often wasn't. I've never done the work to master Reflinks, hadn't even known that to be a formal name (if it is) for "the other way".

Finally, on the footnote front, I've now consulted REFLINKS and have to say I question your use of the tool on this article. I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Finally, on the G20 article front, I first encountered your work with "unsourced + ighly america-centric" and a biggish removal of material on that (linked, above) Revision history. I'd known when I created the "side meetings"+- section that it was America-centric and hadn't come up with a real good way to be overtly welcoming to others to include their other-centric material. But the "unsourced" confused me. I'd worked hard to source my bits well, I thought. Then I went through your Reflinks procedure and found that while you'd restructured (with loss of info; see above) my footnotes, you'd left the editorial material and the cites basically intact. Any comment? I'm just confused, on this point.

And on the archive front: This talk page is big (as a header-template says) (slow to load, for me). I did an archive recently on my talk page which (a) you could consult as a model or (b) I'd probably be able to do it for you pretty easily, and would, if you were amenable. Let me know.

All best. Swliv (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of 2012 SCO summit
Hello! Your submission of 2012 SCO summit at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 13:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Lihaas, just to let you know, there is still an issue that needs your attention there. Thanks, Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 11:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Greek election
I wanted the table to be consistent. No symbols are used in the fifth column (the % change in votes) or in previous Greek election result templates. – Zntrip 15:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Coordinator sought for the US National Archives WikiProject
Greetings, WikiProject US National Archives member!

We are seeking a coordinator to help reboot the project and work on new initiatives! The role is modeled after other Wikiproject coordinators, like the WikiProject Military History coordinators. The coordinator will work with the Wikipedian in Residence to organize and increase participation in the WikiProject, with the goal that the WikiProject is an active space for collaboration maintained by and for the Wikipedia editors, rather than the National Archives.

Please see the full information at GLAM/NARA/Coordinator and contact me is you have any questions. Feel free to pass this note along to any interested parties. Thanks! Dominic·t 21:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
\

DYK nomination of Andhra Pradesh by-election, 2012
Hello! Your submission of Andhra Pradesh by-election, 2012 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Indian presidential election, 2012 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to National Democratic Alliance, National Conference and Ajit Singh


 * Nambaryn Enkhbayar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Accidental Vandalism
Soooooo sorry on my vandalism. I am very much a new user, and would like to apologize on the vandalism on Jupiter. I did this without noticing. I am very sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1234567890Number (talk • contribs) 02:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yitzhak Shamir
Not sure what you mean, but my apologies. Article seems to predominately use UK English, though this was not entirely clear, nor did you state such. Hertz1888 (talk) 10:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
sir for your kind info. I have copied and pasted my own contribution .The topic of shiv sena was my own contribution which i had created in pranab da's article.

Anurag Chakraborty 10:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC) 

Church of the Nativity - World Heritage Site
Well done on the article. Maile66 (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

References?
Hello.

You recently marked Template:2012 Summer Olympics United States women's football team roster as needing more references. What specifically is it that needs to be (better) referenced, and what kind of references do you have in mind? Personally, I think it's well above average reference-wise, especially for its content and intended use.

Btw, you might want to add your suggestions to the template talkpage.

Regards

HandsomeFella (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Please, please stop
Please stop behaving in this manner. You have the potential to be a constructive editor, but at the moment you are just being disruptive. Do we really need an RFC/U to move forward? Number  5  7  20:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This edit introduces a nonsensical sentence to the introduction and changes the text away from what the source says. As for removing the referencing, the mind boggles.
 * This edit is another blind revert, and reintroduces an error to the article ("The Hans Adam"), which you semi-corrected, but the source refers only to "the royal family", not the Prince or Crown Prince.
 * This is yet another example of you using false edit summaries. Your claim "consistency + unilateral style changes need discussion per BRD!" is easily debunked. If you want to talk about consistency, check out Category:Elections in Mongolia and you'll see that all but one of the other articles on parliamentary elections starts with "Parliamentary elections". As for the BRD issue, you are the one who messed with the original bold title (you have done this unilaterally on many articles, so perhaps you are the one who should stop?). So if you're insisting on using BRD you need to restore it to "Legislative elections", otherwise leave it alone.
 * With regards to your comments about changing introductions, there is only "consistency" on more recent articles because you have changed many of them in line with your opinion - see the following links: I could probably find hundreds of these diffs if I had more time, but I hope you get the idea.  Number   5  7  20:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Andhra Pradesh by-election, 2012
Yngvadottir (talk) 08:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Battle of GAO
I moved back the title to the original title when I wrote the page. You absolutely can't make up your own titles because you find it cool. There was no battle in Timbuktu and this page is about the battle of Gao.--Remzone (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/2012 SCO summit
Lihaas, some concerns have been raised regarding this DYK nomination. I wanted to be sure you knew that they had been, so you could address them. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Indian States
Dozens of articles about indian state elections can be written using http://www.eci.nic.in/eci_main1/ElectionStatistics.aspx.--Antemister (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

East Timorese parliamentary election, 2012
I appreciate your apology, and I admit that I made a mistake about the forecast/forecasted cock up (I was very tired earlier), but do you actually look at articles after you edit them? Can you not see the glaring errors in the article how you left it? The first sentence has a grammatic error and the references are still messed up. Also, please stop changing it to "parliamentary election". The original introduction read "Parliamentary elections", so per BRD, you need to get consensus to change it (note that I have not rebolded it). Thanks, Number   5  7  18:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I hate the way {{cite looks (to me it's a very ugly and awkward), so prefer to just format the references in the way I do. As long as they aren't bare urls, I think it's fine. Number   5  7  19:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Peer review/2011–12 Manchester United F.C. season/archive1
Can you do the peer review for Peer review/2011–12 Manchester United F.C. season/archive1? Kingjeff (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to put any pressure on you. I nominated 3 articles before I realized I could only do 1. It would be nice to have this done sometime this week if possible. I have put the other 2 on hold. Kingjeff (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I think question #2 is the only thing that needs to be answered. The question is "How well-written (grammer, punctuation etc) is the article?" Are you good at detecting good/bad grammer, punctuation etc? Kingjeff (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

renewed debate
You were involved in the previous discussion, so you should be aware of Talk:Woody_Interruptus.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

List of most recent elections by country
If you've made a start, let me know when you're finished for the day, and I'll add more. By the way, I restored the section you deleted in Republic of the Congo parliamentary election, 2012. The source does say it about this election - note the date given in the source (Date: July 15, 2012), and I also removed the "date" section in Senegalese parliamentary election, 2012 as it's so short and I'm not sure it's worthwhile having such a short section. However, I have moved it to a separate paragraph in the article. Number  5  7  11:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The other entities aren't countries, and that is what the list is specifically for. Regarding the indirect elections, they aren't really elections. However, I wouldn't be averse to linking the words "indirectly-elected" to the most recent indirect election. Number   5  7  13:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've finished for the day on that article. Number   5  7  15:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Re your question about this, it's primarily because you're the only editor I've ever come across who cares about this. I've seen thousands of articles where the bolding doesn't match the article title (often because we have formulaic article titles that don't match the subject's common name), and I think the vast majority of editors are happy with that. Frankly I was very surprised and disappointed to find that someone had even invented WP:BOLDTITLE in it's current guise, as to me it's hugely against common sense. Thankfully most other editors seem to ignore it too. Number   5  7  21:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Armenian Church comments inaccurate
You had commented on this page Talk:Armenian Church about the Armenian Church and the Armenian Apostolic Church which became the basis of a redirect to Armenian Apostolic Church rather than being inclusive of Armenian Catholic Church and Armenian Evangelical Church. I have addressed to your comments so that the redirect is deleted towards the more inclusive and accurate representation of the Armenian Church. See my comments on that talk page in the interest of accuracy and respecting the legality of all Armenian Churches. werldwayd (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Cuban parliamentary election, 2008
I removed the speedy tag that you added to Template:Cuban parliamentary election, 2008 because the reason given was not a valid one for speedy deletion. You may want to nominate the template for deletion at Miscellany for deletion instead. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16
Hi. When you recently edited Papua New Guinean general election, 2012, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Simbu (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) 11:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/2012 SCO summit
Can you please comment on Template:Did you know nominations/2012 SCO summit? If you are not interested in fixing the problems, please consider commenting ti say you withdraw the nomination. --LauraHale (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Justice and Construction Party
Just to let you know, I've moved it back as this is by far the most common name of the party. Google news gives 2,590 for J&C compared to just 419 for J&D. Number  5  7  13:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankly there already is consensus (3–1 so far), but as it looks like you're unwilling to accept it we'll waste everyone's time with a RM. Number   5  7  13:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that three editors have either moved it to the common title or said that it should be moved and every time you have moved it back. Anyway, I've started the RM. Number   5  7  13:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I wonder whether you may have been confused by the name because the wrong Arabic name was added to the article by someone (I've since corrected it)? If you look at the party's logo, it says "al-Adalah wa al-Bina" ("Justice and Construction"), but someone had wrongly put in "al-Adalah wa al-Tanmiya" (which does translate as Justice and Development"). Number   5  7  14:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think we need a referendums column - they aren't held regularly in many countries. However, linking to the Monarchy is a good idea. Also, did you see the comments about the name being wrong (bina'a/tanmiya) above? Number  5  7  16:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"
This essay might interest you. While it is not official policy, following it can be immensely helpful for constructive co-operation. I have often seen you explaining reverts solely with "no consensus" without disputing the actual merit of the edit, which I find excessively formalistic and borderline disruptive. If you don't dispute the merit of an edit in a contentual regard, "no consensus" should not be a valid argument for a revert. If you have a contentual objection, please name it, and don't base your revert on "no consensus". Thank you, kind regards --RJFF (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, consensus can be (and is in most cases) reached through editing and not only through discussion on a talk page. (Consensus, and this is policy and not an essay). If someone does an edit and no one objects, there is consensus. The history shows that User:Poarps moved the article to Justice and Construction Party on 1 July saying that "bina means construction". You reverted it, without disputing the merit of Poarps' argument, just asking to "seek consensus first" (which should be avoided as the essay explains, that I have cited above) On 6 July, Poarps moved again, citing my detailed argumentation for "Justice and Construction" on the talk page (where I showed that "construction" is both more WP:COMMON and the more correct translation of the Arabic name). You reverted again (2nd) only due to a purported lack of consensus without a rebuttal of Poarps and my arguments. User:Number 57 moved again to Justice and Construction citing "by far the most common name" (WP:COMMON is a valid naming policy. Your "no consensus" isn't!) There you have three users arguing for "justice and construction", and no user (not even you, saying "either way is fine") arguing against it (for "Justice and Development"). See that your conduct is inconstructive and close to edit war? (you have reverted four times (!), albeit not in 24 hours, but long-term edit warring isn't allowed either) I am looking forward to better and more constructive co-operation with you in the future. Best regards. --RJFF (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Reflinks
Please only remove the formatting of references if you are going to use reflinks in the next edit. Otherwise you are just being disruptive by leaving bare urls in place for ages. Number  5  7  20:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did see the edit summary, and that's why I asked you to do it straight away, rather than leaving it for over a week. Why would you remove the formatting if you're not going to do it straight away? Please don't in future. Number   5  7  11:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Suleiman
Hee hee, thanks for your support but there are too many opposes now, that's why I removed it. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Vice Presidential election
Yes, I'd be in favour of including it in the presidential election article. I'm beginning to have doubts over whether indirect elections are worthy of standalone articles, so I'd be all in favour of keeping them to a minimum. Number  5  7  21:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Pranab Mukherjeee
lihaas I had integrated the controversies section into the main body of the article while removing some other parts of it. Like the Taslia Naseem. this - articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-02-18/india/27774767_1_pranab-mukherjee-simone-de-beauvoir-award-bangladeshi-author-taslima-nasreen - was the source for the naseem section. nowhere in that there was a statement that Mukherjee made things difficult for her. It was original research on the part of the adder so I removed it.

the source (http://www.governancenow.com/node/11742) given for the banking threat allegation is disputed. the wording of the allegations in the article are also suspect. it does not allege anything against Mukherjee yet it was ambigious enough for some to cite as a source in saying Mukherjee was threatening banks dealing with Modi. please see the paragraph "There are, however, no official instructions to this effect. The bank chairmen are only told that they will have the consequences for making any financial commitments with regards to the MOUs signed during the vibrant Gujarat mobilisation by Modi."

no source no concrete allegation aka no suing for defaming. just enough innuendo to drum up some "allegations"

please see this statement

"They are also warned that it is not a government programme for which they should make the commitments and they should better insist for completion of documentation instead of agree on any proposals on the spot."

the author then gives a very subjective and suspect interpretation.

"The message is clear. It is a BJP government in Gujarat and the Congress-led UPA government is not prepared to accept Modi's taunts that he can get more investments in his state that are more than all the investments the Centre can get in India."

I called the reliability of the article in question..thats why I cited WP:RS as one of the reasons why I reverted back the additions. Cliniic (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

can you not see how biased and suspect the banking allegations are? please just read the the wording of the article. Cliniic (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

no problem. also it was agreed not to use native scripts in lead in here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_48#Native_languages_in_lead indic scripts have been reverted countless times since then. Cliniic (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Shimao Wonderland Intercontinental
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Iraq bombing article...
I've got it started here 23 July 2012 Iraq attacks, so have at it. --M ASEM (t) 15:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Cheers
I have received your reply. I'll work on "The Proposal" some other day; as for the "Chambers v. Malone" thing, ...let's not repeat what happened in Woody Interruptus. I'm not even sure if the article about court episode is sufficient discussed. By the way, I recommend that you work on seasons, like Cheers (season 3) or any other. I've worked way up high on Cheers (season 1) to help readers see how sufficient every summary of episodes is. And even the two-part Woody/Kelly wedding thing... eh... there must sufficiency... otherwise, don't. Try Cheers (season 10) if you may. It is best recommended. --George Ho (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Almost forgot: care to support WikiProject Council/Proposals/Cheers and Frasier task forces? --George Ho (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Smileys
Smiley is available for use Mjroots (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:2012 Summer Olympics women's football game B2
I'm using the FIFA MatchCast scoreboard, that's where I got the minutes from. We have done so with the previous four matches. Arbero (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics
Good work on the being bold, it was long past time to have the separate article, but I think the page should be moved to a name to be consistent with previous Games. See Talk:Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics. Thanks - Ba se me nt 12  (T.C) 00:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

post?
Hello.

What post are you referring to here: i agree with the othe editor (and was about t post on WP: Football?

HandsomeFella (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The addition of the red card data, its peritnt and about as rarer (nay, rarer) than goals.Lihaas (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I mean: which post on WP:Football?


 * (please answer here, to keep the discussion in one place, so we won't have to zig-zag to follow it)


 * HandsomeFella (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I dint end up posting it as it was created here by the time. (i have multiple tabs open). I was gonna ask abbout the coding, suggest to put in goals as there is no parametre and the "ScorE" doesnt show up in display and whether it was a good idea.Lihaas (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC).

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
Hey, there is a discussion going on, about the match reports for the olympic football tournament. You are welcome to join here. Kante4 (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Questions about Wikipedia & SuggestBot
Hi, we’ve been running a research experiment with SuggestBot and would like to ask you some questions about Wikipedia and SuggestBot. You can find more information and the questions on this page. It should take less than ten minutes to respond. We would greatly appreciate if you had the time to participate! Regards, Nettrom (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.
Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for 2012 SCO summit
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sendoffs in match templates
Hello Lihaas.

Please don't add red cards to the Olympics football templates. The name of the parameter is goals, so that is what is reported there.

Cheers.

HandsomeFella (talk) 08:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * dISCUSS IN TALK. The parametre does not show up- in display at any rate and other editors also thought it was a viable idea.Lihaas (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Where is the discussion?
 * HandsomeFella (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * p.s. answer here to keep the discussion in one place, so we won't have to zig-zag betweeen talkpages to follow a discussion.

2012 Indian presidential election
Will you please stop removing the electoral votes table.It is not the mps\mlas number but the electoral votes.The table that you have added does not accurately measure it.Please go through the older presidential election.You will see in each election electoral votes and not number of mps\mlas voting

see this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_presidential_election,_1997 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_presidential_election,_2002

And in the rest of the elections only electoral vote is there.

manchurian candidate 07:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Report
Please check this, 4 years later, website no longer function as usual, is that what we want for 4 years after the London Olympics? If you kept, who want to make the cleanup task force? --Aleen f 1 15:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think why you need to get consensus? It still the same few years later and i am not take short consistency for longer pain. Sorry. --Aleen f 1 16:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Olympics
Sorry about that, must have miscounted. Arbero (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll try to avoid that, but when a match's coming to an end, there will always be edit conflicts. So I decided to do that by updating earlier. Arbero (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware of that, but I'm watching the match, and I don't think Great Britain were going to concede an late goal anyways. But I will keep it in my mind. Arbero (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

World leader
In this edit you asked a "What" question for the World Leader. The World Leader is a standardized element of the format across all of these articles. It is the best time during that season (who's hot this year), while the records were generally set in another year, the historical best ever. In such a case, if you think the definition or the explanation is poor, since it is a format, you should probably bring that up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Athletics, to discuss a wholesale reformatting of all of our results articles. Comprehending what that means has not been an issue before. Trackinfo (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

List of Olympic medalists in art competitions
Hi, I'm a little confused as to why you tagged List of Olympic medalists in art competitions the way you did so, per your talk page header, I've reverted it and am here willing to discuss. My main (and ever so erudite) reply would be that none of the issues you raised were deemed to be problems in the article's featured list candidacy; to address your tags, the citation style was deemed acceptable in the review, as the controversial bits have specific footnotes and the general results are sourced by the "general" header of references, and no reviewers felt that the lead was inadequate or the content confusing. Regarding your hidden note "this mentions nothing or wikilinks to nothing in explaining some medals", the place for that information is Art competitions at the Olympic Games, which is the first Wikilink in the article. Compare, for example, List of Olympic medalists in volleyball, which does not delve into an explanation of the sport of volleyball and how indoor and beach differ, but merely Wikilinks it as the first word. This is because these two articles are lists - the introductory paragraphs are there to provide some, but not excessive, context. I suggest that, since the article has not changed at all since its FLC, if you really feel that the article is lacking in some critical way that you nominate it at WP:FLRC for review and potential removal so that broader community input/consensus can be obtained.

Speaking of context, I also reverted this edit at Cambodia at the 2012 Summer Olympics as you removed, without any real explanation, information that provides context and background for the article and is completely relevant. Canadian  Paul  22:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've responded on the talk page. And I don't want to get into an edit war but, as has been pointed out on your talk page already, Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". Yes, that's just an essay, but your own talk page header says "If you disagree with an edit I made, revert it and explain why as long as you're willing to discuss it." Discussing it means talking through and coming to some sort of resolution, not stating your opinion and then reverting the other person's edit. Anyhow, if you don't think the page meets WP:FL standards, then please take it to WP:FLCR, which will gain community input, rather than cluttering a page with tags. Canadian   Paul  00:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * An uninvolved user has already removed some of your tags, which, combined with its pass at WP:FLC suggests that consensus is against the remaining tags that you have placed there. If you're not planning on getting proper community input at WP:FLCR, I will be removing the tags. Canadian   Paul  22:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Summer Olympics Tennis Tournaments
The tournaments are also a part of the ATP World Tour and WTA Tour and thats why we used the template for a Tour event. Not a olympic event template. Aleksanderpc (Talk) 14:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Apologies
My bad. Figured since there were only 3 matches going on the updates wouldn't be that detrimental. BTW, can you take a look at [| Mixed Doubles] Bronze medal match wasn't working for me. [| Djwolfga] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djwolfga (talk • contribs) 17:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Took a look at it a while back. Someone has since deleted the coding. Tried to copy it in but when I inserted a team it wouldn't work. I'll keep working on it.

And I took care of all the updates. Not doing it game by game, but am updating every five or six games. Djwolfga (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)djwolfga

WP:CSD per "WP:NOTNEWS"
Hello Lihaas. Per this edit you appeared to believe that the mass shooting of Sikhs was "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia" (per NOTNEWS). You also appeared to believe that "per WP:NOTNEWS" was a valid criterion for speedy deletion. In both cases you are off the mark. The first is subjective, sure, and perhaps in your mind the murder of several people in a single incident isn't worthy of an article on Wikipedia, that's fine to take it to WP:AFD, but your second belief, that "NOTNEWS" constitutes sufficient grounds for speedy deletion, is purely erroneous. As an experienced editor, and one who knows ITN well, I'm surprised by this. Please don't waste others' time on this sort of thing again. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I did challenge it, and hey, it's all good. It clearly is notable, and it'll mainpage tomorrow, I betcha!!  You've wasted a lot of time, and it would be better if you spent some of that time improving articles rather than mis-spelling your way through mini-rants on talk pages.  Please, and most importantly, understand that "NOT NEWS" is not a criterion for speedy deletion.  If you nominate other articles for speedy deletion with this "reason", your nomination will be reverted.  After that, ongoing incorrect speedy deletion requests will be considered disruptive. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is, regardless of whether or not WP:NOTNEWS argument applies to a particular article, WP:NOTNEWS is not a valid WP:CSD criterion, and, as a matter of procedure, no article can ever be speedily deleted on WP:NOTNEWS grounds, period. If you want an article to be speedily deleted, you have to specify one of the valid CSD criteria (A7, A1, G2 or whatever). If no valid CSD criteria are applicable and deletion is desired, you have to send the article to an AfD or PROD it. Nsk92 (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Volleyball
Hey, i think they need a 3-0/3-1 to advance. With a 3-2 they have a worse set ratio then Turkey (10-12 to 9-8). Kante4 (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The tiebreakers are listed at the article i think. Kante4 (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * After the events of a day i go thorugh all medal ones and clean up a bit, adding winners and stuff to the infoboxes. After it, sure i got 1 more week off and will try to do something. Don't know how much, but i try. Kante4 (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Dito, but what page are you talking about? Kante4 (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, never used it. I use the "normal" pages and the german article. Kante4 (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Same with ESP-BRA... Kante4 (talk) 07:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I will enjoy my last free days and check the articles, adding missing stuff, creating articles/templates. ;) Kante4 (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

But it simply looks poor and the info is already given in the proper infobox. Kante4 (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Still don't like it but i fixed a bit. Kante4 (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's why i add just the normal stuff and have a better look when it's all said and done. Kante4 (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Basketball
Only a bit, forgot to update it. Arbero (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thought they were not going to score that three pointer. Arbero (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're going to charge me because of the scores? Yes, it was wrong, but I was doing to according to the London 2012 website, it was behind, and I really thought that was the final score. As the previous match yesterday between Great Britain and Brazil, I did watch the match, but missed the last three points, because there would have probably been an edit conflict by the time the match was over. Arbero (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

notable tag at Refusal to serve in the Israeli military
Hi Lihaas, just wanted to leave you a courtesy notice that I'm removing your notable at Refusal to serve in the Israeli military. Your internal note suggested you were tagging it because you didn't think it was a good title. I agree that it's a bit awkward, but the tag doesn't strike me as an appropriate way of dealing with the issue based on the template's usage notes. Perhaps a requested move is in order. "Non-service in the Israeli military," perhaps? But unless you think the article wouldn't pass AfD or something, I don't think it's the right tag for such a well-sourced article. Thanks, BDD (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)