User talk:Mafmafmaf/Archive 2

Unspecified source for Image:1992 sunburst yellow flickr Vikas GarG.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1992 sunburst yellow flickr Vikas GarG.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 14:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If my offense was not to state the originating URL, I'll put it there now. If something else, please explain.--maf 14:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:1992 sunburst yellow flickr Vikas GarG.jpg
Thanks for providing the source for that image. Unfortunately, the Flickr page shows that the image is licensed under a Creative Commons license prohibiting derivatives (CC-BY-ND 2.0), meaning it had to be deleted under speedy criterion I3. —Angr 14:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:2006 copper red flickr Coffee Monster.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:2006 copper red flickr Coffee Monster.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 20:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've written a reply on your talk page page, since you don't make clear what the problem is. --maf 11:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the terse style; these are standard notification templates that eveyone gets when there's a problem with an image. I've answered you on my talk page. —Angr 11:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Flickr images
Hi, you don't have to send me a list, and IFD is a long process. If you have uploaded more images from Flickr that are either NC (non-commercial use only) or ND (no derivatives), then just tag them with db-ccnoncom, which tags them for speedy deletion. Thanks! —Angr 12:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Will do. Balance for deletion: 4 images, 3 of which orphans anyway. --maf 13:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"I love you" article
Out of curiosity, isn't every time someone says I love you to someone notable to him or her? How do you plan to define "notable"? --Theunicyclegirl 00:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I agree with you. But when I moved the "notable usages of I love you" into a new article, I wasn't making a judgement on the merits of the content (yet), I was just moving content from a dab page. Anyway, your comment must have been made within one minute of the article going live, and then it was speedy-deleted right after, even before I had time to write a "hangon" explanation! --maf 00:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Notable usages of the phrase "I love you"
A tag has been placed on Notable usages of the phrase "I love you", requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

direct copy of a section of I love you

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Denni talk 00:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is what I wrote on the very-speedy-deleted (notice the time stamps) article talk page, together with addendums:
 * I created this article. I don't mind it being speedy-deleted on the demerits of its content, but beware that the content was NOT COPIED, rather it was MOVED from the article I love you, which I cleaned up to be a proper disambiguation article. Since this content didn't fit in a dab article, I moved it into here.
 * So, if this article is deleted, it should be because of its irrelevancy (which I'm not discussing), not because of copied content. Thank you. --maf 00:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum: wow, was that quick! Before I put the above words online, the article had already been deleted. Don't care, moving on. --maf 00:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum to the Addenddum: will someone (maybe the one who couldn't wait for my explanation and made me waste my time) please fix the red link on I love you or reverse my edit because I'm not bothering. Thank you. --maf 00:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I love you
Perhaps you ought to take a tip from the title of this article - you are being a real (fit your favorite derogatory phrase here). As a direct copy from "I love you" (regardless of who wrote it), this duplicate has no hope of any status as a stand-alone article. Trust me when I say you are barking up an empty tree in your efforts to "report" me - first of all, no one gives a rat's ass here about what individual editors do, unless it's to criticize Jimbo or to engage in edit warring, and second, if I hadn't proposed your article for speedy deletion (which requires the consent of a second editor to carry out, BTW), someone else would have in short order. For someone who says "Don't care" and "Moving on", you seem to be someone who cares a lot and isn't moving on in the slightest. If you want to remain a part of Wikipedia, I suggest you Get A Grip.

Just as a BTW, Wikipedia gets thousands of new articles an hour, and someone has to skim the shit. Spend a little time on New Article Patrol to get a taste of what comes through the gates, and you might find yourself viewing things with a new perspective. Denni talk 01:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If I want to remain a part of Wikipedia, I suggest I avoid real (fit your favorite derogatory phrase here). You didn't address MY point (the overzealousness and lack of respect) but rather YOUR point (the article was a copy from another article which is not true - it was a move; even if the new article is meritless, which I agree BTW, that does not validate your procedure and behaviour). Don't forget to rv the original article if you want to stand by your "this is a copy" argument, otherwise that content will be lost. --maf 02:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Notable usages of the phrase "I love you"
Just so you know, the article in question has been undeleted and the speedy tag changed to a WP:PROD request. Discussion is ongoing at WP:AN/I regarding this and similar occurrences. Thanks, — bbatsell  ¿?   ✍  02:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I don't feel annoyed anymore after reading this and the other responses on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Very-very-speedy deleting of an article. Thank you. --maf 02:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Plat disambiguation
I did indeed check your contributions -- which was precisely why I questioned whether there was a plan, because I did not see one. What is the point of making Plat (onomastics) into a redirect to Plat? There is nothing at Plat whatsoever in any way related to onomastics. Further, there is not even a link at Plat to a further disambiguation page. Seems rather decidedly unhelpful. older ≠ wiser 13:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course you are correct, unless you're also questioning the quality of the cleanup. Two articles became orphans after the cleanup: Plat (onomastics) and Plat (disambiguation). I could put them for AfD, but that's not my specialty, sorry, and not needed anyway IMO. --maf 17:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the cleanup was mostly a good thing -- the page had been a mess for a long time (most of those onomastics pages were poorly conceived and executed). I did restore a very simple Plat (disambiguation) (mostly for the link to wiktionary, but also for PLAT -- though I just now realize that I forgot to link to it from Plat). BTW, you don't need to go to AfD for unnecessary redirects. There is also WP:RfD, which has less of the unpleasantness that makes AfD something akin to a toxic waste disposal area. older ≠ wiser 18:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, PLAT, that's new! I can see Plat (disambiguation) getting justified again. Thanks for the Afd ≠ RfD and for explaining why I don't go into those waters! --maf 18:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Emily
Thanks for removing the list of people named Emily and the non-disambiguation content about Emily from Emily. However I think that the list content should be removed entirely from article space, and as for the info about the popularity of the name Emily, a link to List of most popular given names from Emily will suffice, as discussed at Talk:Emily. So I have proposed for deletion Emily (name) and People named Emily. Just wanted to let you know. Best, Pan Dan 17:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Gee, I forgot to check Talk:Emily. I usually do it before starting to cleanup, but this time it slipped, for whatever reason. Sorry.. One of my self-guidelines on dab cleanup is not do delete unique content, but to park it on new articles and let others decide on the merit of the new standalone articles; if I knew about List of most popular given names, I would not have created Emily (name) because I could have deleted that content; however, I'm neutral on People named Emily because I don't know if any of those people are known simply as Emily (sometimes I write exactly that on list intros).
 * (I will duplicate this thread to Talk:Emily.)--maf 18:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
I've noticed that you have done considerable work for many many months for the Disambiguation department; your name is also the only one that I've seen quite often on dab pages. I'm still rather new to this job (which I really like for some strange reason) but I know what a pain it can sometimes be. ;-) You have also fixed quite a few of those freaking onomastics pages by now where I have to feel really bored to even consider fixing. I guess I'll see you around, even if it's just your name in the history. – sgeureka t•c 17:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words. It's nice to see someone's work recognized. Practice makes perfect and I every time I return to MoS:DAB, I find something new to apply that had slipped before. As for the onomastics pages, check this out: WP:SU - amazing, eh? --maf 18:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, you actually deserved it. And yes, I found WP:SU about a week ago, and I have also read the related RfC page by now. I had wondered for some time how a completely crazy dab page like Heim (onomastics) came to be... (That page is fixed now and redirects somewhere else). But I only ever come across such pages if they end up in Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup, and that's rather rare. – sgeureka t•c 18:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Which reminds me, why hasn't anyone ever tagged those pages for cleanup? I just did that for letters A and B... --maf 19:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess it has to do with onomastics dealing with names, and disambiguation with disambiguation (i.e. not names in general except where (full) names need to be disambiguated). Coincidentally, I'm reading up on this very topic at this very minute, and I found this thread in the Talk archive of Mos:DAB quite helpful. I had always used my gut feeling before when it came to dealing with names on dab pages, so I'm happy to see that those nasty onomastics pages that have no risk of becoming dab pages in the near future should not (necessarily) be covered by disambiguation cleanup. :-) – sgeureka t•c 21:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Many of the pages in WP:SU are candidates for splitting between onomastics, list of people, and places, making them also dab pages. Many, but not all. Should I not slap the disambig-cleanup indiscriminately? Maybe, but SU has been stalled for a good while now and has very limited visibility. On the other hand, the single cleanup tag also gets cluttered in its category Category:Wikipedia cleanup. On still another hand, the dab-cleanup category moves along quite quickly. Do the ends justify the means? --maf 23:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Mark Britten, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- Finngall  talk  18:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Mark Britten
I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. There's nothing stopping you from reposting Mark Britten once you've written more than one sentence. And it's not Wikipedia policy to allow placeholder pages -- we get dozens of those a day, and they're all deleted. If Mr. Britten is indeed notable, just rewrite the article and repost it. NawlinWiki 19:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, my arguments are in my reporting of your behaviour. --maf 20:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Prague
Good edit on Prague Society. ( I hadn't wanted to do it all at once, but glad you did. )I'll watch & help keep it small if needed. DGG 04:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --maf 10:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

porcelain and britten
Hi; thanks for starting the porcelain article; there's a bunch of cites on the "resources" page that branches off the talkpage at the main Chinaman age and also maybe in its archive; in at least one case, can't remember which company - not Wedgewood - there is a LINE of figurines named "Chinaman" e.g. Chinaman no.2 chinaman no. 4 etc. It remains to be seen if your inuse tag will be respected, or your linking of chinama's arch, which I may not get to until tonight. I created Mark Britten as you know and also added him to Uncle G's pet project along with other things Uncle G pointed left out, or tried to conceal (like hiding the mention of the ship and porcelain dealer in a discussion of pejorative uses of chinaman and chinaboy......stock propagandist techniques, and I'm wondering what the guys' "real background" is, although he may just be an overgrown teenager/sophomore who knows how to play rulebooks, or thinks he does. Anyway, thanks for monitoring the page; an article on the politics meaning is probably a good idea, but I don't know Indiana history enough to try; as for North American Chinaman, although there's many cites about it there's nothign article-worthy there, not taht couldn't be in something like British Columbian names for other Canadians or History of British Columbian views of Ontarians ;-); it's a secondary pejorative usage, like the chinaman-as-drug-withdrawal meaning (see Chinaman talkpage/archive), as the conduct of Ontarians in violating and taking advantage of local customs (drinking etiquette mostly) caused them to be held in disdain by "native" BCers (this was a railway-era term, mid-1880s); ironically the big riots that you hear about were largely not British Columbians, but Ontarians and other canadians who ahd arrived in BC with the opening of the railawy, only to find the labour force already mostly Chinese; BCers get blamed for racism, but the violent end of it was from imported Central Canadians; all the more irony in that term, then. Hmmmm. come to think of it Chinaman's chance should be listed here, too, shouldn't it? Anyway, as I've said in other posts and been lampooned for it, it's a beautiful sunny day outside and I have better things to do than squabble with liars and morons over what they think/claim is the truth (not speaking of you of course), so "I'm outta here" and gonna go play my electric guitar LOUD out in our very-rare-sunshine (I'm in Vancouver...well, Burnaby actually).....Skookum1 20:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Skookum, read me carefully, as I'm going to sound patronizing and you may well get hurt, although tha is not my intention: I don't care and I don't know - I really don't - about the term "Chinaman", and I could care less and could know less. All I'm doing is DAB patrol, that's it. However, I can see the enthusiasm you put into this subject and the benefits that WP may derive from it. If only you would accept that a) no one is there to attack you personally; b) no one is there to attack the subject. Accept good faith and accept others' edits. There is still stuff on the DAB article that should be left out but I'm not doing it for the moment for fear of being misunderstood by you. But rest assured that, if not me, someone will eventually one day stumble on the article and edit it according to WP:MOSDAB. And that, my friend, will not be, and will never be, censorship. Please put your efforts into improving articles and creating new ones, just like you did wonderfully for Mark Britten, and do not engage in time-wasting arguments with other editors. No one owns the truth and everyone can chip in, therefore you can't fight everyone! Keep up the good work and think about the million articles you can still write for WP. And lovely city Vancouver is, I can certify! --maf 20:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * NOT when it's raining, believe you me - we had 27 out of 31 days in March, 60-year record rainfall, after a string of the rainest months, also all record-setting; it was NASTY. And we thought LAST year was bad (46 days of rain in a row at YVR airport, which gets half as much rain as the rest of the metro area).  And don't get me wrong - my cause is about truth, and I really resent false history, and I lambaste Canadian and BC/Vancovuer mythologies/misrepresentations all the time, and have done the same from "both sides" on articles pertaining to teh Indigenous peoples' Wikiproject, where I'm effectively one of the main contributors/organizers for BC First Nations articles....; I get painted by other people's knee-jerk prejudices but really it's because I don't like seeing pretentious liars hide behind a mask of civility while advancing clearly negative agendas.  That being said, the ref to north American Chinamen can simply be moved to the main Chinaman page and/or Wiktionary; as I said it's NOT article worthy, but was added originally as an example of ways in which "chimaman" could be use to NOT refer to Chinese people, andsince it's citable (andHong was obsessing over cites on this page) I added it, never expecting it to become an article.  However I really mean what I say - if English language names for Chinese people survives its AFD, it sets the stage for other articles about demonyms/ethnonyms in various languages, and British Columbian terms for other Canadians would be just as valid as what Uncle G is trying to foist on Wikipedia, along with another hundred or more similar topics; in the same vein, as you'll find when you read Gweilo, that page "should" be Chinese language names for non-Chinese peoples as it's not about Gweilo per se alone.  Yes, tit for tat, but I'm not the one seeking to establish precedents.  And yes as a commented privately to another co-combatant on the AFD, it galls me to think of the many historical articles on BC and more that I would have written this last week if not "forced" to defend myself against the energy vampires and wheedlers/disemblers at the AFD and their ongoing false and mirerpesentative claims about the article's content, other editors' positions, ad nauseam.  Hiding behind a rule book and a mask of seeming calm is just that - hiding from the truth.  That's where I'm coming from on ANYTHING; and my ability write a whole bunch of words in a few minutes gets read as "ranting", but really it's just my natural style/writing speed; I talk at length on stuff too "because it's there".  The fighting at the AFD has prevented me from spending time on improving the chinaman article or, until this morning, starting the Britten article or the Chinaman's Arch article (easy enough to google that), and I'm painfully aware of the energy-suck which was in fact the whole point of Uncle G's various merge attempts and the upshot of Mikkalai's lanching of the AFD.  That article, and the AFD, are CFWT (colossal f88king waste of time) and I'm not the only Wikipedian whose energies and abilities have been sidetracked by this nonsense.  Whatever; I'm glad you're patrolling the DAB, as it was being "patrolled" by Hong Qi Gong before to great ill effect....your opinion on whether historiographies and cultural critiques belong in teh "Literature" section would be appreciated; I'm not comfortable with that designation for waht I thin kare bovious reasons; Literature as a standalone by itself doesn't include history, criticism et5c; it's only when it's "the historical literature" (small-l) and similr forms that it can be used to refer; unles there's a wiki predent/rule on this, but I'm tired of quibbling with Hong's nitpickiness (you'll note he doesnt apply the same wikipicky to Uncle G's work....or even his own)..Skookum1 20:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * PS I don't hurt easily, as I've acquired a lot of "leather" from living here; it may be beautiful, but the people can be vicious, overtly or in passive-aggressive mode, either way....so you learn to take a lot on the chin as being more about the other guy than ever really about yourself........Skookum1 20:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Bowling vs bowler
I understand why you shortened the descriptive lines in the page, but the upshot of this change is going to cause a lot of head-scratching in North America, where bowling isn't done on a cricket pitch but in a bowling alley....not sure what else you could say, because "throw" is a North American term and not used in cricket in the UK (not even sure if they use it in rugger -??)..Skookum1 22:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That entry could do entirely without an explanation, as "(cricket)" is all that is needed to distinguish the article from the others. Try to picture people who are specifically looking for a chinaman article in the context of cricket - not people who are wandering through WP and casually fall on Chinaman (disambiguation) and then get puzzled over whether they should click on Chinaman (cricket) or not. In other words, in a DAB article, an entry's explanation is there to distinguish that article from the others, NOT to explain what that article is about. This is a very important concept which, if you get it right, will help you not put any redundant content again into a DAB page. --maf 01:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * when I originally saw the page the description was there, and I thought that was because that's the name of the target article - Left-arm unorthodox spin, q.v., in which the explanation of the name is given; it seemed to make sense on content rules, but I don't know much about how strict disambig pages are supposed to be; I've seen all kinds, and tried to straighten out others; in the case of those I've edited/formatted within my area, British Columbia, there are several large ones which local users are likely to type in Squamish, Lillooet, Comox, Nanaimo, Kootenay, Cariboo, Kamloops, Okanagan, Chilcotin and a host of others which might not, for the sake of ordinary local users looking something up, not might be too helpful of the shears were applied too strictly. And please be aware, were you to happen to work on such pages, that the language used in any of the native-related disambiguation pages is very sensitive and walking a tightrope, trying to acknowledge native concerns over terminology/attitude while at the same time being explanatory and not alienating for non-native users; these are all crossover points because they're the names of major towns which are the "capitals" of their areas and so come up in government and town-topic names, as is also the case with the plethora and complex network of native nations that spans the province so they're just as important to the First Nations as they are to non-First Nations BC.....and the point is that they have different ways of seeing and talking about the province; it's a tightrope; generally what's there is pretty careful, so while you're trimming pls be careful about vocabulary and chosen phrasing/meaning: it's sensitive; see Talk:Squamish and Talk:Skwxwu7mesh and related pages as to how complex, and how sensitive.  But thanks; just a heads-up as to cultural as well as political sensitivies, and also perhaps with a mind to the Wikiproject Indigenous peoples of North America parameters and discussions, which cover similar stuff far outside of BC, which also involves distinctions between different types of articles for the same people; hence a multiplicity of dabs generated from that alone; multiply that by the non-native landscape, and in all cases they're also geographic, political, river, lake and city names; these are "directory" pages I guess, but I'm wary of seeing too much trimmed; unless it's a hard-and-fast rule and "must be".  But be it as it may need to be, oh well....thanks again for working out our knots (needlessly thorny that they were).Skookum1 05:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Dealer/figurine/ship
Needless to say, the mainstay of much of the Old China Trade was porcelain, and tea and silk of course....reason I'm mentioning this vis a vis the ship is that it's also a related "porcelain" meaning to dealer and figurine, althoguh like dealer in a different sense than the figurine. The reason, as I gather, that dealers became known as chinaman was because the ship captains/owners were themselves the dealers, and by default their on-land operations saw the transfer of the name; I'm not sure about this and was going to write http://www.thechinaman.co.uk to ask if they know the history of the term at all (no doubt they've had to defend their name publicly, so I imagine they researched it just in order to keep their sign up. Also of interest and relevant to equating the dealer and the figurine is that the figurine is pronounced like all the other ethnically-derived usages; but I'm reasonably certain that both the ship and the dealer are not pronounced the same way, but rather China + man, with a second acent on -man; that I'll also find out; pls remember that the ethnic-description-based porcelain usage and the porcelain-dealer usage have different syntactical content - one is "chinese + man", the other is "china (trade) + man" - which is why I don't think they should be in the same entry; if anything the porcelain dealer should be with the ship......Skookum1 22:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure how/if this fits in, but just now in reviewing the chinaman.co.uk website I looked through their legal page, and "The Chinaman" is a registered European trademark, so it looks like they have exclusive use of the term now although there were once many dealers known in the small-case "c" sense. That doesn't make things citable, although of course in any page on that this should be mentioned, I'd think.Skookum1 23:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Fyodor
Hi, Maf! This is in regards to this comment of yours, but since what I am about to say is not really related to my original inquiry, I'm contacting you via your talk page.

Basically, what I wanted to say is that "Fyodor" and "Fedor" are two alternative spellings of the same Russian first name, which is why they should both go to the same disambiguation page. "Fyodor" spelling is per WP:RUS, which is why the disambiguation page is titled what it is.
 * In that case, the intro can be better rephrased with that explanation. --maf 21:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but since it's a disambiguation page, there is not supposed to be a long introduction :) There are redirects, however.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's still not a long intro AND the explanation can't fit anywhere else AND it wouldn't be enough content for a new article. --maf 21:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not an article; it's a disambiguation page, hence the intro should be kept as short as possible.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

My other concern is about the see also section. I assume that you removed the link accidentally (I have restored it), but I don't quite understand your reasoning behind expanding see also to a full-blown section (with only one entry). I'd appreciate your response. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the broken link. I've never seen see also used as footer; on the other hand, I've always seen it as a proper section, even on dabs and even on small dabs. BTW, just noticed that Fyodorov needs a big cleanup. --maf 21:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We generally use the template for one to four links, and a section for five or more links. Keeps it tidier.  Thanks again.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, but who's "we" and is that a guideline? I repeat that on all my work on dab-cleanup I've never seen such formatting. --maf 21:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "We, the editors..." :) On a more serious note, I'm referring to the folks who routinely work on Russia-related articles.  A compacted "see also" section works extremely well for name-related dabs.  Note that unlike with English, where a "see also" section is not usually common, Russian-derived names take different noun and adjective forms.  So, if one is to refer to something related to, say, Kemerovo, one would say "Kemerovo xyz" in English.  In Russian, it could be "Kemerovo", "Kemerovsky", "Kemerovskaya", etc.; all translated as "Kemerovo" in English.  It's not a problem when one translates the word, but when you have to romanize it (as it is the case with geographic names), you have to stick to the original form.  To avoid creating a dozen disambiguation pages for every gender variation of an adjective, they are all bundled into one disambiguation page (see, for example, Krasnogvardeysky), and the related forms are given in the "see also" section, because any of those can be searched for by a reader who does not know Russian).  "Fyodor" and "Fyodorov" are of the same root, so they are interconnected.  Once we have a dab on Fyodorovo, it'll be connected as well.  This is not at all unlike New Market and Newmarket examples given in the MOSDAB.
 * Note also that MOSDAB does not provide strict guidelines as to how the "see also" section should be formatted, it only provides guidelines as to what should and should not be included. With respect to existing practices, for the sake of consistency, and out of plain courtesy, it is best to use the see also template on dab pages based on words of Russian origin.  Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, I was already respecting that format as of my last edits. --maf 02:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope you did not take my rant above as if I was accusing you of anything :) I was merely trying to clarify that when it comes to disambiguation, regional differences play a major role.  I'm sure that if I ventured outside my usual Russia-related editing domain, I'd meet my share of head-scratchers when I tried to clean-up, say, Portugal-related dab pages :)  Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't take anything personally. Disagree again with you however, in that en.WP should keep a consistent style and not be affected by "regional differences". I understand other-language WPs have developed different styles on their own, out of their regional cultures and such, but if there were a policy on formatting 'See also' sections instead of guidelines, I would go with it. --maf 03:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm, I'm afraid one can't avoid having to deal with the region-specific differences, or else they would come back one day and bite one in the ass :) MOSDAB has a "break all rules" section for a reason.  As for the formatting guidelines, I myself would rather see that spelled out in the policy as well.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 03:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

disambig format
I noticed on a couple of disambig pages that you've changed the formatting from  In something:  to  ;Something . Certainly the later is better than nothing, but when the former is already on a page I don't understand changing it. Also, the manual of style for disambig pages has a policy that uses the former. If you think a ; is the better solution you might want to suggest a policy change. Honestly I don't really mind if you just keep doing it your way anyway, but if it's already setup the way the manual of style suggests could you leave it alone? Thanks Vicarious 18:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Vicarious, I am so, so happy and at the same time deeply humbled that you took some of your time to write on this subject. I see the passion within you, which helps propel WP towards that perfect utopia we all seek.
 * To answer you directly: yes, I do prefer the ";" format; no, I don't think it violates MOSDAB (which is a guideline, not a policy); yes, I do revert to my preference when doing a cleanup; no, I never edit a dab page to just change the header formatting (but I've seen others - you? - do it to their preference); yes, I would like to see guidelines changed to policies so there are no more discussions like these; no, I don't think this is a petty discussion; yes, I have followed the discussions where the ";" method was widely accepted and even preferred (the ";" method was made technically possible after MOSDAB was written, as I understand); no, I will not make a proposal for that method to become policy or guideline; yes, I suppose the use of ";" then must fall either into the "guideline is not policy" hole or into the "break all rules" which you so severely dislike.
 * Still, as much as you dislike having formats changed, I also dislike having my wording formulations changed. To each his pet peeve, That's life, or rather, that's wiki, and that utopia will always be, well, utopia.
 * Take care! --maf (talk-cont) 19:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Nappy (disamb)
Just a heads up Wikidudeman, is currently using Nappy disamb to further is goal on Don Imus. DocGratis 12:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Alice
Following your recent tagging of the Alice disambiguation page for clean-up, would it be possible for you to specify your points of contention on the talk page so that they may be addressed? Thanks. CounterFX 01:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, will do.--maf (talk-cont) 01:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

S (disambiguation)
Hi, I noticed that you separated the S (disambiguation) page into 2 disambiguation pages, the 2nd one now being S (symbol). I'm not sure of the purpose for this, why do we need two separate disambiguation pages for S? I'm not implying that you were wrong to have done this; I likely don't have a complete understanding of our disambiguation page guidelines. --Xyzzyplugh 12:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, someone tagged S (symbol) as a dab page, which I did not mean to be when I created it. It is a list of stuff that can be represented by the symbol S, and which is even more suitable for the Wiktionary. I'll develop further on Talk:S (symbol). Thanks for pointing this to me, which had escaped my watch. --maf (talk-cont) 00:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Big Four (music)
An editor has nominated Big Four (music), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. 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 "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 by adding your comments at and 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. Thank you. 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. Jayden54Bot 19:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Portugal
Viva Mafmafmaf! Não estarias interessado em ser um dos participantes no WikiProject Portugal? Contribuições como a tua são sempre bem vindas! The Ogre 14:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Viva The Ogre! Thanks but no, thanks. I'm out of anything "WikiProject". --maf (talk-cont) 22:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 20:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Too strict?
''shoeofdeath, you're being too strict on your dab patroling. This article is not a dab - keep the content.''

How is this article not a dab? Also, the Jewish Pedigree article was almost entirely written (copy-pasted) by SU, is incoherent, and (IMO) should be deleted at a later stage in the WP:SU project. (There is really no such thing as a Jewish pedigree, the entire premise of that article is false)

I realize I am being extremely strict on his surname dab pages, but I feel it is necessary.

shoeofdeath 23:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, I realize that you have done a tremendous amount of good work at WP:SU (sgeureka credits you with reviving the project) and didn't mean to be harsh in my previous comment. It seems that you are confused as to what a dab page is. On Wikipedia dabs are "paths leading to different topic pages that could have essentially the same term as their title". This would include every surname page, even if there is some content on them as well. shoeofdeath 23:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are off the general consensus that surname lists (and lists of names in general) are not dab pages at all. That being clear, there is a thin consensus that lists of names are still relevant articles at all, and thus they have been kept. And, if lists of names are not dabs and are relevant, I put onomastics content in those lists as well. Please go thru the talk pages of both WP:MOSDAB and the dab project and find countless discussions on this. Anyway, I'm kinda out of here - precisely because the guidelines are so broadly defined, and half the world is continuously redoing the work of the other half due to their own interpretations of the guidelines. --maf (talk-cont) 00:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sort of confused about what the general consensus is. As far as I am concerned, any page that consists mostly of links to other pages is a disambiguation page. I agree that many of the name pages are unnecessary and see why the whole dab situation is such a mess. I personally am more concerned with WP:SU than with dab pages in general, and would strongly suggest not keeping any "onomastics content" that was added by SU (for various reasons). I would also encourage you not to leave Wikipedia totally, though - you have obviously done a lot of good here. Perhaps focusing on articles that interest you instead of more administrative stuff like dab pages would help. Or maybe you just need a break, like all of us every once and awhile. shoeofdeath 02:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right. Confusion is the norm and as far as you are concerned, you can do anything because guideline is not policy and consensus is just opinion. Maybe you'll be the policy messiah that WP:MOSDAB needs, but, for the meanwhile, thanks for helping me decide to jump off board. I just rm myself from WP:WPDAB. Tada. --maf (talk-cont) 22:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You clearly misunderstood what I said. I generally do not care about dab pages and am focused only on WP:SU. I am not claiming to know more about dab pages than you or anyone else; I only tried to talk to you because you said I was being too strict on SU pages and restored some useless content that he added. In my opinion you were a little too lenient in cleaning up SU pages; this not your fault at all, you just did not realize how much of the content that he added was junk. Again, I do not plan on wasting my time on dab pages outside of WP:SU or becoming a "messiah" - I realize I spoke a little too confidently before and deserved such a comment. I can't tell if you were being sarcastic or not there when you thanked me, but I really think that avoiding controversial issues makes Wikipedia a lot less stressful. No hard feelings. shoeofdeath 00:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, I was not sarcastic - everyone needs a push for big and small decisions. Again: you have every right in considering name lists as dabs because a) there is no policy, only a confusing guideline on that, and b) there is a consensus that name lists are not dabs, but consensus is even less then guideline. Therefore, you have the right of thinking I was too lenient in cleaning up WP:SU, like I have the right of thinking you were too strict. SU is almost all about name lists, plus a little content (onomastics), plus a little dabbing for places or whatnot. I would prefer content not to disappear though (unless found to be made up rubbish) as it is harder to put content in as it is to put it out. But the last edit prevails and that will not be mine, with no regrets and no hard feelings, believe me, as I'm having too much fun right now compiling a list of artworks of a painter I admire and have my hands full for the foreseeable future! --maf (talk-cont) 02:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:SU is about names for now, because that is what SU spent the most time editing. After we finish with the surname pages on that list, however, there is a lot more work to be done - he created a huge number of other articles about Judaism, people, and places that need to be dealt with as well (mostly deleted, IMO). I know quite a bit about the stuff that he edited and am very determined to undo the damage that he did here (lots of rubbish!). Afterwards I will be very relieved and hope to relax and spend some time on stuff that is actually interesting like painting and architecture. : ) shoeofdeath 03:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Question at WP:EAR
Hello there. I thought I should leave a note here in case you are no longer watching your question. I suggested AfD as an alternative to Prod, largely because it is much more likely to reach a conclusion in these circumstances. The process is a bit more fiddly, but you're welcome to ask for assistance if you haven't done an AfD before. Regards, Adrian   M. H.  11:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the tip! --maf (talk-cont) 13:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC).
 * I have also commented there; I think some work from additional editors might help bring compromise. The discussion does seem to be getting incivil. DGG 20:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. Could you please provide a status update on your request? Please leave all correspondence with your EAR. Aarktica 12:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Behrendt (name)
fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason: Housekeeping - cleanup per WP:SU, content moved to Behrendt --Android Mouse Bot 2 06:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, even though I'm talking to a robot, I want to say that I don't oppose the deletin of that article but I consider it absolutely pathetic that I was given notice during sleep time (06:43 UTC) and even though I'm answering this barely one hour later and early in the morning (9:03 local time, 8:03 UTC), the article is already deleted. If I wanted to halt the process, I couldn't because it was my fault that I was sleeping and didn't check this page for one hour. Pathetic. --maf (talk-cont) 08:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's how speedy deletion works, though. The article is usually tagged before deletion (though not always, if the criterion is clearly met and the page is first seen by an admin), and the page is deleted by the first admin to agree with the tag. In this case, I have reversed the deletion not because you were upset about it, but because it removed from view several intermediate edits, which is not allowed under the GFDL. I have instead made your surname page a redirect to Behrendt. Any further discussion on the merits of such a page should ideally take place at Talk:Behrendt, which I see has not been done here so far. Thank you, and let us know if you have any further questions. -- nae'blis 13:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Until recently you might well never have gotten any notice, only found that the arricle was gone when you noticed a red link, and had to check the deletion log to find out why it had been deleted, if you knew how. Speedy deletion means "deletable on sight" that is, without delay or warning in most cases. Notices are a courtesy so that you can find out what happened and why -- if it happens that you are in time to contest a speedy tag, fine, but there is no guarenteed right to do so. Any speedy can be reveiwed at Deletion review if you think it was imporper, or better, you can ask the deelting admin to reconsider if you have a good reason. This is one reaosn why the speedy deletion criteria are supposed to be narrow and adhered to pretty strictly -- if an admin is unsure that an article warrents deletion without time for discussion, then s/he should use prod. DES (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey maf, just doing some more SU cleanup here. Sorry about the huge scary bot warning, I am really getting sick of that useless Android Mouse Bot. There was no need to make a separate page for the surname Behrendt, and if so it should have been at Behrendt (surname) anyway. There is no need to preserve the edit history either since it is already in the main article's history, but I am tired of fighting to delete useless redirects. Anyway, nothing to worry about, just ignore this nonsense. shoeofdeath 17:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not about the article, it's about the SD process which is broken and which I've run into more than a couple of times already. SD admins have been discussing for ever that SD should either not be so speedy or else should not refer to the hangon tag. The current process and wording are not in sync and that's what I'm venting at. --maf (talk-cont) 20:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually i am an admin who is pretty much a regualr on WT:CSD and I don't recall any such discussion, nor would I support either change if it were proposed. DES (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3 times I've had SD bombs blow early on my lap and 3 times I've reported the hasty admin - but it's always the same discussion between admins with no evolution at all. That you cannot see the non-logic and the prepotence that I described, or that you see and condone them, either way is what amazes me and makes me lose my patience. --maf (talk-cont) 22:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)