User talk:Miyagawa/Archive 3

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

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

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

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Cocker Spaniel
Thanks I actually did the change on the Cocker Spaniel page as part of a school project. My teacher told me that Wikipedia was unreliable and i told her that it was monitered but was told that I was incorrect. I then told het that I betted if I changed something on a page to false information that it would be fixd in less than one day. Thanks Again Jonthecockerspaniel (talk) 04:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review for Welsh Springer Spaniel
I shall be undertaking the review of this article against the Good Article criteria, per its nomination for Good Article status. If you have any questions or queries please don't hesitate to contact me. ✽ Juniper§ Liege  (TALK)  21:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review of Alpine Spaniel
I shall be undertaking the review of this article against the Good Article criteria, per its nomination for Good Article status. If you have any questions or queries, please don't hesitate to contact me. ✽ Juniper§ Liege  (TALK)  00:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for review of article series
Hello,

Earlier this year I created a series of articles on the Baron Carpenter & the Earls of Tyconnell. The articles seem stable and nothing new has been added recently. My goal is a B rating minimum for this series.

Would you be so kind to review them? I believe two are clearly B or better and the others are at or close to B. Please see:

Baron Carpenter (of Killaghy) (1719)
 * General George Carpenter, 1st Baron Carpenter (1657–1732)
 * George Carpenter, 2nd Baron Carpenter (died 1749)
 * George Carpenter, 3rd Baron Carpenter, created Earl of Tyrconnell in 1761

Earls of Tyrconnell, fourth creation (1761)
 * George Carpenter, 1st Earl of Tyrconnell (1723–1762)
 * George Carpenter, 2nd Earl of Tyrconnell (1750–1805)
 * George Carpenter, 3rd Earl of Tyrconnell (1788–1812)
 * John Delaval Carpenter, 4th Earl of Tyrconnell (1790–1853) (extinct)

Any help is appreiciated. Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Any chance of using the B-Class yes or no scale to help clue me in with what is missing? Jrcrin001 (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * B1=


 * B2=


 * B3=


 * B4=


 * B5=

Thank you!
Thank you for catching that vandilism on our Education in Ancient Greece page. We appreciate your time and effort. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordwizard1 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Embankment tube GA review
Many thanks for the speedy review. --DavidCane (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Southern sky from Paranal Observatory
Hi. There's an edit at this nom. Will you comment on your preference for the original or the edit? Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 09:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Picardy Spaniel
Hi, please review my edits to Picardy Spaniel. I am ready to pass the article as GA if you have no objections, as I am familiar with your dog articles and feel this one is up to par. Please see Talk:Picardy Spaniel/GA1. Thanks, Xtzou ( Talk ) 23:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI
When reverting page move vandalism, you can normally move the page back to its original target, providing there are no other edits to the target after the move, so you don't need to tag it for deletion. If there are edits after the move, you can use db-vandalism because cleanup of page move vandalism falls under G3 and will usually get a quicker response. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   11:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Lassie (1954 TV series)/GA1
Hi, I have reviewed the article you nominated at Talk:Lassie (1954 TV series)/GA1 and I am impressed with how well written it is and how much information it conveys. I have left just a couple of questions on the review page. Best wishes, Xtzou ( Talk ) 16:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

GAN backlog elimination drive - 1 week to go
–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 16:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for your help with the article Cocker Spaniel!
 * No problem, I'd hoping to get Cocker Spaniel, English Cocker Spaniel and American Cocker Spaniel bundled together as a good article. I still need to overhaul the American and there's probably a couple of subsections that need to be added to the health part of Cocker Spaniel but I'll get the health part sorted during the week and then put it up at Good Article Nominations. Once that's done I'll give the American one a look. Miyagawa   (talk)  20:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, from my point of view, there's nothing wrong with having one article American Cocker Spaniel another English Cocker Spaniel and called cocker spaniel that says everything about them in general, as not a breed or maybe not a dog type but a "type" of spaniel. You probably should save those things that are specific to each breed in their articles, and at cocker spaniel (note the nocaps) you say about how they divided and how they compare and the old definition that still seems to be used for Welsh Spaniels; as any Spaniel that is used in that way.  That way, you'd be filling a lacuna that existed in the wider scheme of Wikipedia better when they are not bundled together into one article.  Also, I'd go so far as to say that someone should do for springer spaniel what you did for cocker spaniel.  Then there wouldn't be that gap on Wikipedia between the article Spaniel and articles like English Springer Spaniel.
 * Oh well have fun and good luck! Chrisrus (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Landrace
Hey, I just read this interesting article called Landrace. Have a look at it. Are you thinking what I'm thinking? If Spaniel is Casey's dog type, and American Cocker Spaniel is his dog breed, what is cocker spaniel? Just thought of you while I was reading that and thought you might like to know! Chrisrus (talk) 06:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in the April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive
–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Cocker Spaniel
Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Cocker Spaniel/GA1
Hi, I am reviewing your GA nomination and have left a few comments at Talk:Cocker Spaniel/GA1. However, I am vaguely dissatisfied with the article, as it gives little sense of the dog, except its physical description. Also, I am not sure what it adds to the other two articles on spaniels that it draws from. Perhaps you can help me with this. Best wishes, Xtzou ( Talk ) 21:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I cannot speak for this article, but I played a role in it's history, so I would like to respond to what it adds to the other two articles on specific cocker spaniel breeds.
 * When I first arrived here, it was just a disambiguation page, sending the user to one or the other breed, but saying nothing about the phenomenon of cocker spaniels in general, before they were a breed, how the two breeds developed, what differences there are between the two, and what concerns they share and which they should not be confused about. I have a book and an article which speak of cocker spaniels in this way, Urban Gun Dogs, and an article from a hunting magazine, which show that there is a body of thought out there on this subject that is outside the usual American Kennel Club stuff, which is about breeds and standards and such, and more about them as a part of hunting or lessons for people owning a hunting dog of this type of spaniel as a pet, things they should know about not only the history and how they got their name, but a big part of the nature of the beast today, what it means to be a cocker spaniel of any type.  So I used these to create a little start-class or stub-class article about not any Cocker Spaniel capital letters but rather cocker spaniels lower case, and it was pretty interesting but not much more than that.  There's almost nothing left of that article now, just a sentence or two, Miyagawa found many great sources and was able to expand on what I was saying and explain things more fully and has created what I think is an excellent article.  If we should move or merge some things with the individual breed articles, that's fine, but is such a thing amoung hunters who need and speak of them as "cocker spaniels" of no particular breed, or at least there has been, (and may still be amoung the Welsh Spaniels), and just for that fact alone it deserves an article.  And the fact that it deserves an article means it deserves a good one, like Miyagawa's Cocker Spaniel.Chrisrus (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for My Own Brucie
Thanks for this one Victuallers (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Golden Retriever Vandal
Is there any way to block 166.198.129.98 from changing the pictures in the article? I suspect they are on wireless as they have changed their IP many times. They have changed the pictures at least 8 times. Or maybe lock the article for awhile till they go away. Is it possible to block or delete their pictures? Thanks gd8man (talk) 04:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Many thanks, Miyagawa, for removing the vandalism from my personal user page. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 09:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Louis H. Carpenter article update
I finally got some information I was waiting for and I added it to Louis H. Carpenter. This confirmed and updated dates for ranks, assignments, and positions. I also finally confirmed his service with the 5th United States Colored Cavalry Regiment. I would appreciate if you took a look at it. With another review, do you think this will finally get to A/FA status?

Please let me know. Jrcrin001 (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of DogsBlog.com


The article DogsBlog.com has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of DogsBlog.com
I have nominated DogsBlog.com, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/DogsBlog.com. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of DogsBlog.com
A tag has been placed on DogsBlog.com, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Miyagawa, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Miyagawa/sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of files removed today here.


 * Shut off the bot here.


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of Best in Show winners of Crufts
-- Cirt (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Many words about few words.
Hello and thank you for all you do on Wikipedia!

You know, every time I see your username I'm reminded of the words "and gently extricate" from the article cocker spaniel, back when it was a lowly stub; before you'd worked your magic on it. It still bothers me, and I have decided to try to approach you about it.

These words were written by me, us, Wikipedia, not that website that the reviewer criticized the article for having found them in. They took it from us (us) me, Wikipedia, not the other way around! Not that there's anything wrong with that: Wikipedia is open source, first of all, so they are free to lift our text. And neither does that fact cast any doubt as to the reliablility of that source, I forget what it was at the moment, but all it means is that our text had passed their judgement and they seemed to feel it described the action of that moment as well or better than any original text they could have come up with. It's as if that phrase had passed a sort of expert review. In effect, that's what it means, experts checked that text and must have felt it was not only true but well said.

Now I have to admit that I do have a little bit of personal pride involved here, but so should you. The reviewer's implication was that you had lifted the text from that site, but you and I both know that you got if from the old stub so you didn't do anything wrong and would never lift text directly; you know that we're supposed to summarize stuff.

And that's what I did, I read an article in Gun Dogs magazine and the book Urban Gun Dogs and summarized what I'd learned, just to get it started and fill the lacuna with at least something until someone like you came along to do it up right. I never saw that website, and so did not take that text from there. I know it was my text because I remember very vividly staring up on my spanieling hill (actually, just my steep backyard) and thinking about the best way to explain what they do, recalling what I'd just read, and envisioning my spaniel, Casey, and how he does it with the bagful of Audobon Society stuffed birds that I chuck up there into the shrubs and how he does it differently than the terrier I used to have would (which would have involved that terrier kill-shake and lots of shredding, whereas those birdies have a chip which plays a recording of the bird's song if gripped too tightly and Casey only very rarely sets of that mechanism, proving what a soft mouth he has), and so I typed the words "gently extricate" to describe how he ever so carefully snakes his head up through the forcythia or whatever and so nicely gently gently extricates the birdie without setting off the sound, which the terrier would never do. How better to say it? You obviously must have thought it was pretty well said, too

So it bugged me when that reviewer made you remove that text by threatening to withold his/her "excellent" or "good" until you took it out on the grounds that it looked like you'd cut-and-pasted it or some such. You did no such thing, but only you and I know it, but it was just a couple words, so it wasn't worth fighting for.

Anyway, I thought it was unfair and didn't improve the article, but it brings up an interesting point. If this happened once, it could happen again. In fact, reason dictates that it probably has. Articles elsewhere may have been made less good by the same process, and that, I guess, is the important lesson here, not the way this particular incident. I have no idea what could be done about it, however, but it's worth thinking about. Maybe there is a place I could go to tell my story and maybe others might have an idea about maybe warning reviewers that such things can happen and what if anything can be done about it.

Sorry to leave such a hastily written, unedited, rambling post, but thank you for letting me get this off my chest, anyway. Please understnd that I'm not asking you to go to bat about this, and I do know that it doesn't matter much, but I decided to let you know anyway what actually happened, how I feel, and, thinking about this occationally since then, about the larger issue involved: this incident demonstrates that other sites can take our best text away from us in this way. We don't mind if they use it, but we should be able to use text that originates from us even if a reliable source chooses to use it and some reviewer mistakes it for a direct cut-and-paste job. Finally, I should probably say that I do realize that the reviewer was just trying to do a good job of checking and had no way to know that text was originally ours. Chrisrus (talk) 04:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Where the Red Fern Grows cover
Hi Miyagawa,

I am trying to find a hi-resolution image of the original dust jacket for "Where the Red Fern Grows." Is this something you have? And if so are you willing to share it with me?

Thanks a lot.

Todd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptod212 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Improved records
I did improve some of your articles. First, you claimed Gibson to be 107 cm at withers but his record certificate didnt say anything about height at withers. And i removed the 7'1 claim on his hindlegs because thats simply BS.

Second, "Giant George" was not measured to 43 inches at withers so why lie? he was measured to 39 1/8 at withers and 42 5/8 at his neck (later rounded up to 43) i have both pics and statement from his owner to prove it.

Third, both Gibson and George was/is Guinness records tallest AKC dogs only, not WORLDS tallest dogs (Guinness only accept AKC registered dogs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldVillage (talk • contribs) 02:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Responded to on User talk:GoldVillage. Miyagawa   (talk)  20:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Unaccaptable
You're the one claimed Gibson to be 107 cm at withers in the first place, YOU're the one who should provide evidence for that claim. (but u havent) His Guinness record certifikate didnt even mention withers, neither did it mention shoulders. Just only "107 cm high"

George was measured to 39 1/8 at withers and 42 5/8 at mid-point of his neck - we have Nassar's own words to prove it http://images.quickblogcast.com/8/3/9/6/1/227076-216938/GiantGeorgewebpage.JPG

If you dont change back the articles, i will. Your lies & false propaganda must end here and now / GoldVillage (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Responded to at User talk:GoldVillage. Miyagawa   (talk)  20:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Dont change back
Again i removed the unproven claims when it comes to Gibson. Its very simple! if you cant provide evidence for the 7'1 standing upright and 107 cm withers claims, then dont change back!

And for George, whats not a better reliable source than statements and pics from George's own website? he is 39 1/8 at withers and 42 5/8 at mid-point of the neck. I have screenshots from his website to prove it and i already linked to one GoldVillage (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Responded to at User talk:GoldVillage. Miyagawa   (talk)  20:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If not involded why interfere?!
You linked to a site who said George was 42 5/8 at shoulders/withers but i proved he was 42 5/8 at mid-point of the neck and 39 1/8 at withers! (WHAT part of that did you not understand?) not only that, the site you linked to also said Gibson was 42.6 while guinness claimed 42.2... thats not a trustable site! but mine was, since it came from George's own website!

If you, like yourself said, arent that involded in this then how dare you to interfere when you dont know almost anything about this?! unlike you, i have been following Gibson every since he got his record. GoldVillage (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Responded to at User talk:GoldVillage. Miyagawa   (talk)  19:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Give up
If you dont stop changing back to your unproven claims about "Gibson Great Dane" im going to report you to wikipedia.

1) you keep changing back to 42.6 inches at withers. Fact: certificate says 42.2 inches and dont even mention withers.

2) you once again added the 7'1 ft "standing on hindlegs" claim without any source, you need to back it up with certificate, pic or video of that specific measurement. A claim wont do! GoldVillage (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

stop what?
STOP what?! (telling the truth?) Gibsons certificate says he was 42.2 inches tall, and dont even mention withers - and thats the way its gonna be in the article!

George was measured to 39 1/8 inches at withers and 42 5/8 inches at mid-point at the neck! Stop accuse me for adding my "personal analysis or synthesis into articles". HOW can information from George's website be MY personal analysis?!

Now dont change back again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldVillage (talk • contribs) 22:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

List of people killed by dogs in the United States nominated for deletion
Hi!

This article, currently ranked as having "high" importance to WikiProject Dogs, has been nominated for deletion (see Articles for deletion/List of people killed by dogs in the United States). I would appreciate any feedback or suggestions. Thanks! Astro$01 (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)