User talk:Murgh/Archive 4

Thanks!
Thanks for your support on my RfA. It passed with 55/0/0. I'll try my best to be worthy of the trust the community has put in me. If there are any of my actions you have a problem with or a question about, please feel free to discuss this with me and if needed to revert me. If there is anything else I can help you with (backlogs, comments, ...), you can always contact me on my talk page. Fram 14:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hergé
Murgh, my update to Hergé was marker as "(rv revision by Mapryan (talk) until sources are presented)". I'm new to Wikipedia, so could you point me in the direction of what I need to do to resolve this? Incidentally, the changes are made are direct quotes from Remi recorded in the interviews presented in the program "Tintin et Moi". Cheers Mapryan 17:41, 25 February 2007 (GMT)
 * Sure thing. In order to make such an edit stick, there needs to be added information within a Citation template such as Template:Cite video :


 * as in the case of the documentary you are referencing. Simply copy/paste in the "table" right after the statements and fill in the applicable Tintin et moi info. This way WP is a useful tool for research, allowing readers to verify for themselves. Hope this is helpful, cheers, M URGH   disc.  18:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the example. Incidentally, where it says time=, I assume that means how many minutes into the relevant programme the quote occurred? Mapryan 18:51, 25 February 2007 (GMT)
 * Yes, it's the place to indicate elapsed time, or timecode if available, for a very specific citation. M URGH   disc.  19:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * One last question (I hope). Can you give me an example of a page where this has been used? Be nice if I do this to try and get it right first time, so it'd be useful to see a previous example. Thanks again, Mapryan 20:29, 25 February 2007 (GMT)
 * Going to that template's page, you'll see on left side menu: "What links here" -> Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Cite video to a long list of articles that employ this template. To pick just 1? eh.. Matt Groening M URGH   disc.  20:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've just gone through the video and added the appropriate sections to the Wikipedia page. If you could give it a quick once-over for me that'd be much appreciated. I'll probably do a few more of these in the future related to other subjects so it'd be a good thing if I could do the right thing (if you see what I mean) Thanks Mapryan 21:02, 25 February 2007 (GMT)
 * That worked out nicely, just to let you know what I did to follow up: Once a reference is repeatedly used only a short reference is necessary, like this: Notice it's identical to the initial ref's intro, except for the / closing the end. Also it is normal to compact the table after you're done adding info. Here's the diff of what I did to polish it up. But hey, well done.  M URGH   disc.  21:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Incidentally, the reason for the multiple similar tags was that the time in the video is different for each relevent quote. Is there a way to reflect that in a more shorthand way? For example, as all the rest is the same, could you say something like this? Kind Regards Mapryan 21:02, 25 February 2007 (GMT)


 * That would be handy but I haven't seen any device like that. I simply altered your first ref to accomodate the subsequent ones, so it read: time= 10:20-10:40 which is a little crude but still useful. M URGH   disc.  21:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thanks for all your help with this. Mapryan 21:37, 25 February 2007 (GMT)

Rene Goscinny
I can agree about the reference section. But in the categories you must put the surname, otherwise it'll be listed under the R of René instead of the G of Goscinny. Bye and good work. --Attilios 12:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Glad you agree. Not sure how brand new Template:DEFAULTSORT is, but it is very clever and effective, preventing what you mention there. M URGH   disc.  13:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"previous commentator ... his criticsims"
On Articles for deletion/Pirate Cove (webcomic) you wrote: "Furthermore the previous commentator ought to cool it with getting personal as his criticsims stands some criticism themselves." Was that directed at me? I'm the commenter right above your comment. -- Dragonfiend 05:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all. There was an edit conflict, and I didn't change the text since you neither wrote in comment, nor was getting personal. M URGH   disc.  05:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. I took the liberty of cutting in line, so there would be no future misunderstanding. Sorry about the confusion. M URGH   disc.  05:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for clearing up the confusion. -- Dragonfiend 05:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Commons POY 2006
I confirm vote for pic 4 from my normal en:WP account, same guy as commons:User:Murgh M URGH   disc.  16:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Venus
Hi there, re this edit, the anon editor was probably not vandalising. Venereal is indeed an archaic adjective relating to Venus, as is Venerean. I'm not sure what version had the greater historical usage when in reference to the planet, though, so I won't think of changing your edit back. Best regards, &mdash; BillCtalk 19:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it's possible my summary was harsher than deserved, but it was nevertheless an unexplained switch of text. Had the contributor included both, (and ideally justified it in summary) I would have left it alone, but substituting and adding a joke with double entendre, the editor would need to make a better case for the change, I think. But hey, if it's important it'll reappear, hopefully better. Cheers, M URGH   disc.  00:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Johnny Hart and Christianity Today source
Could you explain in more detail why you don't consider the source to meet WP:RS? Thanks. JoshuaZ 02:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, the Today's Christian made incorrect claims about the awards leading the article to feature a factual error in its opening paragraph, with an apparently legitimate source attached. These lines, for instance, are useless from a sourcing perspective:"—Best Cartoonist of the Year (France's highest cartooning award) —The Sam Adamson Award, twice (Sweden's international award for graphic artists)"
 * It's unacceptable to keep it under the pretense of providing a source for Hart's awards, and there are many better sources. This for one. I see other problems with this article posing as encyclopedic reference, but it may not be necessary to get into that.  M URGH   disc.  03:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. JoshuaZ 19:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. Cross checking is good. M URGH   disc.  12:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Manchester United F.C.
How can you possibly think Manchester United is anything but a world-famous club? The vast majority of people around the world know of the club, and I should know, having been to many different countries worldwide. Please stop removing the "world-famous" statement on the Manchester United page, or I will have you reported for vandalism. PeeJay 18:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This message I just had to answer on your talk page. M URGH   disc.  18:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. I have given you a perfectly good reason why the "world-famous" statement should be left in, and yet you removed it again! Why, dude, why? PeeJay 00:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then we are talking past each other. I don't think you have given a good reason. I don't disagree with the world fame, it is common knowledge and well-sourced, but the sentence as it stands becomes a mockery of NPOV. To say something is famous world wide once is fine, but to write "... world-famous English Football club ... and are one of the most popular sports clubs in the world, with over 50 million supporters worldwide " is untenable. This is the first line and already encyclopedic impartiality is blown. If the exact phrase "world-famous" is of utmost importance, then the sentence has to be redrafted at the cost of "most popular in the world, world wide" which I'm certainly fine with. You really can't see my point here? Would you like to seek advice from someone who doesn't have Manchester United on their watchlist? M URGH   disc.  01:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

TeckWiz's RFA
Hey Murgh. Thanks for supporting my unsuccessful RFA this week under my old name, TeckWiz. I'm now known simply as User:R. I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. -- TeckWiz is now R Parlate Contribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 21:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested moves
A few weeks ago, you began to make several requests to have articles about comics moved to names which were compliant with WP:NCC. These were not listed at WP:RM, and so have not received any attention. Most of the targets appear to be red links, so there should be no obstacle to your making the moves yourself, or, if you think discussion is necessary beforehand, you can complete the requests according to the instructions at WP:RM. I have found nine, although I may have overlooked a few: Talk:300 (comic book); Talk:Blueberry (comic); Talk:Bobo (comic); Talk:Cupido (comic); Talk:Jeremiah (comic); Talk:Léonard (comic); Talk:Redbeard (comic books); Talk:Warrior (comic) ; Talk:XIII (comic book) (this last one actuallly contains some discussion). --Stemonitis 09:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Murgh has struck out the completed moves


 * Well at least someone noticed ;) I have been doing these moves for quite a while now, until now entirely unopposed, so the surprising responses at XIII (comic book) halted me in my tracks, and I turned to the comics wikiproject to seek consensus support, but it has been slow moving, and I eventually realized my concerns might have to be brought up at the comics naming convention discussion. It seems (comic book) isn't as undesirable as I initially thought, but I thought I'd have a go argumenting for a change there. This is unrelated to the ones simply tagged (comic), and I will get around to moving those, controversy-free. Thanks for reminding me. M URGH   disc.  15:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I only came across them in clcearing out the half-formed proposals and so on that accumulate in Category:Requested moves. So, just make sure that you remove the move tags once you're finished, and everything will be hunky-dory. --Stemonitis 15:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I pledge to do that :) M URGH   disc.  15:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up
Wow, that's scary. Thanks so much for the heads up, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. Yes it is creepy. M urgh   disc.  14:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I left a note for about blocking that IP. Thanks again, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Bédétheque
Murgh, I think we better not use Bédétheque too much as a source or external link, since it is basically a Wiki (i.e. not a reliable source), where most of the relevant info can be found in the BDM catalogues anyway, or at the homepages of the editors (Dupuis, Casterman, ...). I know that Bédétheuqe is often correct, but I don' think any of the info is really indispensable. The BdOubliées is perhaps not much more reliable, but the info on it is often not reproduced by books or more reliable publications, so can be kept as a reference until then. I have removed Bédétheque from the Hubinon article, and I think it is perhaps best if we remove it from every article that has been checked against the BDM (or the Dutch Matla catalogue where applicable). Fram 19:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well if you really think so. I've never seen BDM catalogues online (and don't own any) but they only go back to 1979. Publishers vary quite a bit how well they present records of their past publications. While some are OK, others range from poor to 'out of business', so in my experience Bedetheque biblios often present the only opportunity to find, for instance, the publisher, date and ISBN of a 70s Pichard album. By my gauge more reliably than a wiki, and in some cases indispensably. Not their bio stuff, mind you ;) M urgh disc.  09:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the BDM is not online, but we usually favour printed sources over online sources anyway. And the BDM was first made around 1979 (don't know the exact date, and the Matla is from 1977 as well I believe), but of course it contains the info for all (or many) comics from the beginning of the comics industry (I think the oldest is a Töpffer from 1837). So Publisher and Date should be easily found through BDM, ISBN may be a problem though (although ISBNs are missing from everyting older anyway of course). And Bédétheque is less complete than BDM. It e.g. misses "Panda" by Marten Toonder, published by La Libre Belgique in 1951 or thereabouts. It also has typos (well, the BDM probably as well, but Bédétheque seems to have more of them), see e.g. "L'espiègle au gand (SIC) coeur". Another incomplete example: it only lists 69 of the 100+ "Néron" (Nero (Flemish Comics)) titles. It only has two of the Zozo comics (there are, I believe, some 15 of them, I don't have my BDM nearby). It even only lists two albums by Töpffer. Basically, it seems good for recent comics and seriously lacking for older comics. Fram 10:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no doubt BDM is the legitimate option, but as far as researching bibliographies, many Fr-B authors use multiple publishers, and the publishers themselves are unconcerned with that, often only printing the most recent dates and ISBNs of publication (if that) so there is no available alternative, unless BDMs have been applied to verify.. I guess what I mean is, Bedetheque is the closest to an RS found online. If a bibliography is to be included in an article, some resource should be indicated..? M urgh disc.  12:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree,as long as the biblio has not been checked against the BDM, Bédétheque is acceptable. However, once someone has checked and (if needed) corrected the bibliography against BDM (or some monographie for an author, many of the well known authors have monographical books or reliable magazine articles written about them nowadays), the Bédétheque linked should be removed and replaced by the more reliable BDM one. Fram 12:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good routine. Maybe something worth preparing a template for? Incidentally, do you think a Taskforce:European comics under the WikiProject Comics is a good idea? Most editors under the big umbrella have US comics closest to their hearts, so it could be useful to pull together for those of us that have other priorities.. M urgh disc.  13:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-creating deleted articles
A tag has been placed on Sore Thumbs, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a. If you can indicate how Sore Thumbs is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template hangon underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:Sore Thumbs saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we request you to follow these instructions. /Blaxthos 06:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As I wrote on Blaxthos talk, I am not impressed with the reasoning that came to the conclusion that I had created this article before and needed to do it again after my failed AFD, or re-created it after someone elses's failed AFD, but this got speedy tagged on a whim, which resulted in an admin speedying within few hours. Struggling with AGF, I think it's quite ridiculous, and a flaw within WP that the system can be played that way. M urgh disc.  10:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Calm down. The message you received was placed on your talk page by me. Additionally, nothing states that you recreated the same article, or that you recreated your own deleted article. It was simply a courtesy to let you know that the article was already created and subsequently deleted due to notability concerns. It doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion, and so has been removed. Please check out WP:AGF. Thanks. /Blaxthos 14:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am quite calm. And I now see it didn't meet your criteria at this AFD. although I think AGF skipped a chain in the events here. Not having endured your frustration with this article continually appearing, I could imagine it becoming a peeve, and easy to forget that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. M urgh  disc.  19:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Userfied Sore Thumbs
Okay Murgh, I userfied only your revisions of Sore Thumbs to your user space, User:Murgh/Sore Thumbs. Did you want the associated talk page or can I delete that? Steve block Talk 19:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. It comes with the territory, my passionate plea and all that, so if it's no problem it would be nice ;) M urgh disc.  19:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. If you do take it to deletion review, keep me posted. Steve block Talk 19:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yoga poll
Hi! There's some discussion on whether using "asana", "yogasana" or "yoga asana" as the article title. If you are acquainted with the subject, you are invited to drop your opinion at Talk:Yogasana. Davin7 09:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC) 07 (UTC)

Le blog de Frantico
Thanks, I was a bit hasty there. Thanks for all your other work as well, by the way. I would have to check more of your contribs to see if all your work is up to the same standards, but assuming it is (civil, neutral, helpful, ... and so on), would you ever consider becoming an admin? If so, I might nominate you, as we can always use more admins. Fram 16:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, no prob. Thank you for the admin thought. I may like that in the future, once I've grinded down my baby teeth and effortlessly behave like a model wikipedian, but for now I know there is still stuff to learn. There are also the responsibilites of adminship that would mean doing less what I'd like and necessarily be involved in conflicts which isn't very appealing. I've noticed your Wikipedia activities took a slight shift after you became an admin and I'm not sure I envy that development. Not to mention the potential horror of an RfA which would probably prompt quite a few statements like "doesn't need the tools" which is true. I can help with European comics and fight astronomy vandalism just as well as things are now, but maybe I'll get an expanded perspective in the future. I'm very pleased about you enquiring though, so thanks for making my day. M URGH   disc.  17:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand your reluctance :-) If you ever change your mind, feel free to drop me a note. Fram 22:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool. Thanks again. M URGH   disc.  22:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
You have been reported for vandalism. Do not remove information that has a reputable source. 122.49.166.14 19:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I wish you would report me, please do. The edit you made had all the conviction and self-righteousness of the above message. It seems you must really believe that HMV, a vendor of music, publishing this top 100 most influential artistsThe List So Far.... list (stating nowhere in English who has ranked Serge Gainsbourg #62, does it in Japanese?) constitutes not only reliable source but reputable source. Just as if it were an Amazon or Virgin publishing such a ranking, it not only isn't RS, but it has no business concluding the lead paragraph of a biographical article. It's puzzling all over as your user contributions show you (though maybe not you being an IP contributor and all) deemed Spin an unreliable source. It may cause me future grief, but I'm sorry to tell you I would remove it again. M URGH   disc.  22:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

1. HMV is one of the most respected names in the music industry.

2. Sources do not have to be written in English.

3. Registering a Wikipedia account does not make you more special than editors who do not register.

4. I do not remove any sourced information that is from a respected news publication, industry company, or from anyone that is a representative.

Furthermore, according to your opinion, lead paragraphs like "Since the 1980s, his legacy has been firmly established." should not be included, nor should references to the "guardian"

Remove this information again without consensus, and you will be reported for edit warring, and also vandalism again. This is a warning!

Your above comment will also be taken as bad faith. I suggest you read the Wikipedia guidelines. 122.49.166.14 00:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll leave your edit alone because:


 * 1) I'm quite certain someone else will assess your edit as I did.
 * 2) I hope never again to be in contact with person 122.49.166.14, who sees no hypocrisy in branding "vandal" and accusing others of "bad faith" etc.
 * 3) The above statements smack of creepy zealotry, really making it difficult to refrain from replying in an uncivil manner. Further communication from this IP will be ignored and possibly removed. M URGH   disc.  00:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Murgh. The source isn't really reliable and the "fact" is trivial and non-encyclopedic anyway. IrishGuy talk 00:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Care to explain why? Is it because you can't speak Japanese? How is this trivial, when almost all other articles relating to musicians mention similar things? 219.90.242.174 01:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Murgh outlined the valid reasons above. Additionally, switching your IP address to continue edit warring will simply result in both being blocked. Stop. IrishGuy talk 01:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Image Size Selection
(Is this the appropriate page for this discussion? If not, feel free to move. If it's all been gone over before, could you supply a reference?)

What are the Wiki policies on image sizes? On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirou_et_Fantasio, for example, the albums photos are 300 pixels wide. On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crab_with_the_Golden_Claws, the book cover image is 200 pixels wide, but the frame it's inside causes it to take up 290 pixels of the horizontal space for the text. The right and left picture margins are twice the size of any other margin on that page...

There are still some that think everything should be easily visible on an 800x600 laptop, Web-safe colors, and paint quickly when seen on a dial-up line, but checking the figures, the viewers for whom all those considerations are true are under 5% and have been dropping every year considerably. On the other hand, average screen size is getting larger, and many graphic cards don't even have a setting anymore that allows using as few as the "Web Safe" colors. In such situations tiny thumbnails look miniscule. Another consideration is the owners themselves -- generally they like their work represented in the most favorable light; for example, being able to see the publisher's name, logo, text, expressions on faces.

Regardless, resizing a photo downward from the uploaded Wiki version isn't optimal. The quality sometimes drops considerably between the thumb and uploaded full file size: For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tintin_and_Alph-Art and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achille_Talon are noticable. Maybe one has to be sitting in dim light and have an LCD with a 800:1 contrast ratio or greater for this to be noticable? One solution, it was pointed out to me, is to upload the photo at the resolution it will display. But that works only if there's some fixed standard so the photo isn't resized later.

Thoughts? Alpha Ralpha Boulevard 16:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. I think such things are debated at Wikipedia_talk:Images, but policy differs between own and copyrighted media. You are right in that no resize tampering will have maximum clarity result, so a custom upload is ideal. Since especially non-free fairuse images don't (or extremely rarely) exceed a width of 300px, that's a reasonable starting point. 230px is frequently used (for upright images) in comics articles, certainly in creator articles as that width echoes the infobox and balances the layout. Restraint is also an issue since the day when Wikipedians for an all fairuse-free-wikipedia revolutionize, may draw near, and provocation is unnecessary.. I'd be interested to know if you make deeper discoveries about this.  M URGH   disc.  18:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You read my mind again. Is that considered fair use? Lol.


 * 300px seems to be a width figure that's mentioned frequently in other discussions about image size. But as might be guessed, there's more to it. This article is worthwhile:


 * Section "A rational change" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_26#Need_guidance_on_WP:NFCC.233b


 * An aspect of this rather interesting issue is what the preference of the author/illustrator/publisher would be. Do they frequently complain, one wonders, or the discussion in the above article largely theoretical? An artist for a non-comic book cover -- who had no other representation in the published work -- might feel that an 800 x 1000px photo of their precious cover painting violated their rights. But in most other situations one would think the owners would want as big a picture as possible. It presents them at their best...it's free advertising. I contributed to a comics magazine in college, and I am close friends with the editor. If somebody wanted to put an 800 x 1000px image of the cover of our publication in Wiki...? Excellent! We would just want to be sure the photo was professional quality. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard 18:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I'd imagine the publishing world has a wide variety of differing POVs on this, as there is, no doubt, in the WP community. I personally think the "loan" of fair use images ought to be no more or less than what is appropriate for an encyclopedic illustration, equally mindful of those that oppose as those who really welcome the exposure. Often used to justifiy fair use is that an image is "web resolution quality, of lower resolution than the original, -copies will be of inferior quality". Certainly fair enough, but at the same time not reduce to the point of defacing the represented work, obviously in nobody's interest. For instance, that Achille Talon image you thankfully replaced was of such poor quality that it hurt the eyes. The idea is to provide illustration with an aim to educate, so, as long as it's still possible, I only try going by common sense.   M URGH   disc.  21:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Stub type proposal
I'm sorry that the Franco-Belgian proposal ended as a withdrawn request, though I certainly understand why. The idea of a Euro-comics-creator-stub (as originally suggested) is still a viable one, though, and is likely to be created at some point, probably in the near future. Hopefully that will make it at least somewhat easier to keep track of the stubs. Grutness...wha?  23:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. The Euro covers it, and ideally stubhood is very temporary condition. Cheers, M URGH   disc.  23:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm. It looks like Peg must have misunderstood you. I'll re-propose it - with any luck it shouldn't cause any problems with it just being for a Euro type. Grutness...wha?  00:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Barks
Why do you insist on having that silly flag there? According to all the reasons described in WP:MOSFLAG there is no reason to have a flag. People really can read the words United States instead of seeing also a pretty picture. Also, WikiProject Comics has no separate manual of style. At least not one I could find on the project page. Garion96 (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * On account of a feature consistent in some 700 articles, as I wrote. Yes I'll insist on the established practice being the same for all versus one wikipedian's random displeasure, but I'd certainly bow to a consensus that decides a bot do the same to all articles project-wide. You're welcome to argue this at the WP:CMCtalk (and may find agreement for all I know) but just deleting one flag and then moving on I find a bit disrespectful to those that tend the template. M URGH   disc.  19:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are too many difficulties with flag icons. See this edit. Perfectly correct, utterly stupid. There was no manual of style section about them when slowly flags were added. Now, after long discussion there is a manual of style about flags, so slowly they will disappear. I see no disrespect at all if I remove some. (btw, I just remove them from articles I read). Especially if there is no mention of them on the wikiproject page or on the template itself stating the project wants to go against a manual of style. Garion96 (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I see your point, but in this respect it applies to vandalism on every level. If Barks' flag is your next flagcruft target, taking it though WP:CMC is the way to go, because I am not the only one that will react to a deviation of established style affecting that many articles. Take a pick from here and look for yourself how deep this goes. I've invoked the guideline WP:FLAG myself, in cases of overuse and misuse, but I think these infoboxes are pretty modest.  M URGH   disc.  20:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I totally disagree with you but respect your opinion. But I don't respect the word vandalism in this regard. That's complete nonsense, on every level. I suggest you read Vandalism to get a better understanding what vandalism is. Garion96 (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me?, I thought we were being civil here. I would describe changing Romy Schneider's little flagicon to a nazi flag vandalism, and am grossly surpised an admin would claim any different. I'll have to assume misunderstanding but please don't be so jumpy. M URGH   disc.  20:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * reading again I see I wasn't as clear as I thought, so I am sorry about that. M URGH   disc.  20:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yes. Complete misunderstanding there. I thought you meant my removal of the Barks flag was vandalism. My apologies. Garion96 (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad. No I'm convinced in your good faith and the guideline could be right about nationalism, even at this discrete level, but that template's maintainance represents a lot of people's work, so if it is to be flag-free it should be done right. M URGH   disc.  20:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. I am glad I made another convert. :) Even without a bot removing all the flags, I do think (hope) they slowly will disappear since I am not the only one removing them from infoboxes. I am glad it is gone from the Carl Barks article though, my favourite comics artist. I hope some day to really improve that article, have enough sources here at home but for some reason never have the time/energy to do so. Garion96 (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I expect it's pleasing to make converts ;-) And I think you're probably right, they might hopefully become obsolete, since there is something very simple, conflict-evading by just removing them from the mix. Good luck having a crack at Barks when the time is right. M URGH   disc.  21:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Will Eisner
You're edit warring over whether a flag is left or right justified at the above page. I've created a section on the talk page for a discussion regarding the issue. In the meantime, if you are at a loss for other things to do, can I suggest Category:All pages needing cleanup? Happy editing. Steve block Talk 17:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the word of caution, but I wasn't about to go thirds on it. I do have a section at ComicsTalk related to the issue, and it would be nice to have a project-wide stated understanding towards the handling of the issue. M URGH   disc.  19:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, I just noticed the dispute and wanted to nip it in the bud just in case. It's best to treat all parties as equal for fairness.  I hadn't realised the discussion at the comicsproj was related. I agree that there needs to be a consensus of some sorts. Steve block Talk 20:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yellow Kid
My mistake, I somehow thought I was seeing quotations marks, sorry about that. All the best to you! Gwen Gale (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah. Thanks for clearing that up, it was a bit mysterious :^) M URGH   disc.  20:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What??????
Why did you delete the Image I posted on the page "cartoon" that looks like the one listed below????????????????!!!! THANKS --Pomergirl (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Lollipup


 * Dear madam, I haven't deleted anything, but I have removed your cartoon dog from the current version of Cartoon. It doesn't seem like you've been contributing to wikipedia for very long, but I'm sure you can agree that it's OK to take a moment and get familiar with the project and the community before jumping into deep water. You may have noticed that none of the other contributors have put in their own cartoons on that page, and there are several reasons for that. One is that people are getting together on Wikipedia to try to make something like an Encyclopedia. When contributing to articles, contributors go by a few understood principles, and try to be conscious of a few things to avoid, so the process ideally will feel like teamwork. One excellent aspect of Wikipedia, and this will one day make it into an amazing resource, is that it collects free information and can easily point a user to the actual source, which makes Wikipedia a good, trustworthy tool, but part of that deal is that we avoid putting in our own ideas and always put Wikipedia's intersts ahead of our own. So I hope you can look at it objectively, and agree that for those who want to look up "Cartoon" it might be more useful to see a work considered historically significant, than something self-made. Also, I would recommend that you take a little time to look at how edits are made in the Manual of Style, so there is less of a chance that people like me rush in to change or remove it. Good luck.  M URGH   disc.  03:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Gaston Lagaffe: in-universe?
Hi Murgh, I just removed the "fiction" parameter from comicsproj on the talk page of Gaston Lagaffe. I see that you recently updated the parameters of the template on this talk page as well, but didn't change this parameter. If you think the article is still too in-universe, that's fine, but I would recommend using in-universe on the article itself to indicate this. Cheers, GentlemanGhost 20:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. No, I didn't remove that parameter (I don't relate to that concern and Imagine whoever put it there did so when GL looked a bit different) maybe because I felt whoever placed it there would want to have a say. On a bolder day I might have cut it too, but thanks for informing me, and the advice. Cheers.  M URGH   disc.  22:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin
Hi. I just wondered if you'd consider letting me nominate you for adminship, as I think you're experienced enough. Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thought. I think I'm only part sufficiently experienced and not motivated enough. For the responsibility that comes with the mop I may not be around enough in the coming months, and I'm weary of the haul that I feel I'd have to take a part in. I would like to contribute with adminship one day, I'm fairly sure, but it wouldn't be right to commit to it right now. But thanks a lot though for suggesting it. M URGH   disc.  22:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Jean-Louis Triaud
A tag has been placed on Jean-Louis Triaud requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears 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 an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia 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. Orange Mike  |  Talk  15:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please look closely at the template you posted stating "makes no assertion of notability", and then 2 WP:RS on the stub asserting notability. M URGH   disc.  15:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Bordeaux second wine article
Hey Murgh, I really think the work you are doing on the Bordeaux wine articles is really awesome and you certainly seem to know you stuff. That's why I want to ask you about what you think about having an article on the Second wines of the Bordeaux chateau. I've been tinkering with the idea for a while but had a hard time finding enough reliable sources to make a worthwhile article. I can find sources that define what a second wine is but I think a really good article on the subject would be more a list noting things like Bahans Haut-Brion is the the second wine of Haut-Brion, De Marbuzet is Cos d'Estournel, La Croix is Ducru-Beaucaillou, etc. What do you think? Is there enough there that would warrant an article? AgneCheese/Wine 14:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pleasant feedback :) I think a Second wines article would be very interesting (and limited to Bordeaux makes sense considering the limitatons in the tradition, maybe the article title should contain that? Or what makes historical sense?) If I understand you right, you're thinking about a full article with an embedded list of second wines?  I'm sure there are considerable RS for it, but I'm guessing it's very scattered. None of my books have anything nice and compact on it, but I sometimes come over good sources, so yes, that definately seems like an article I'd like to contribute to.   M URGH   disc.  15:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Bordeaux certainly is the most prominent example of second wines though some high end California wineries also have a second or third "label". Tuscany also has a fair share but it along the lines of the top end wines being Brunello di Montalcino and the "second wine" being classified lower as Rosso di Montalcino. It may be worthwhile to have the main focus being on the Bordeaux second wines but have a section on "Second wines in other regions" or something. While I've been able to identify a few second wines by word of mouth and exploring, unfortunately that wouldn't qualify as a reliable source for an article. :p AgneCheese/Wine 15:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, so there's a chance there would eventually come a split to a "List of second wines", but I'd think the big brands with 8-12 sublabels should be kept out ;) I know Mouton Cadet started out as a second in 31 but certainly couldn't be considered one now. I'll dig some into it, because I don't know the historical evolution of it and my books don't tend to elaborate, but it would be good to have a source that touches on the phenomena broadly. As far as spot referencing, I'd consider thewinedoctor.com RSworthy, so a specified search gives something to work with.  M URGH   disc.  16:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiki-Winos invitation
Hey Murgh! Would you be interested in participating in our Wiki-Winos segment for an upcoming addition of Wine Project Newsletter? If you are interested take a look over the interview questions and post any replies to the to the answer page. If you have any questions, just let me know. AgneCheese/Wine 07:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * :) Thanks, not this time though. Maybe when I'm a bit more senior. M URGH   disc.  09:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem but it is more of "get to know you" type deal so don't fret about seniority. The offer will always be open whenever you feel like it. :) AgneCheese/Wine 11:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

 *  jj137  ♠ 01:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaning images
FYI, when a non-free image is orphaned, it is better to tag it with {{subst:orfud}} rather than merely blanking the page. By tagging it with {{subst:orfud}}, but leaving everything else intact, you (1) automatically queue it for deletion and (2) allow for it to be easily reused should there be a need. --B (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. M URGH   disc.  12:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting Talk:Venus
Though I'm not sure what to do about creationists on Wikipedia. Sometimes I wonder if I'm just wasting my time trying to counter their arguments, but I think it's best for anyone reading the discussion who might be "on the fence" as regards this lunatic argument to see both sides.  Serendi pod ous  12:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think you're right, I certainly haven't any inclination to engage in any debate about that ;) .. But as far as personal attacks on talk pages, the policy is pretty clear about reverting on sight so I'll stick to that. M URGH   disc.  14:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick request
In the future, if you could use instead of , I'd be very grateful. Although the latter one automatically redirects to the former, it has been deprecated, and we're trying to phase out its usage as task force tagging slowly occurs over the next year or so. Knowing that it's not being added to new articles would put me greatly at ease. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. M URGH   disc.  11:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Pics of Lascombes Sr & Jr
Hi Murgh, I just noticed that you had posted Image:Lascombes-grand & second.JPG as an illustration of Second wine. Some time ago, I was thinking about a similar illustration - first and second wine next to each other - and I realised that the only pair where I had a bottle of both was... Château Lascombes! But I soon realised I only had the 1982 and 1983 of the Grand Vin (which I believe have changed label design somewhat since then) and 2003 of the Second Vin, so I didn't do this picture, since I thought it would look strange with such an old wine next to a younger wine. So you can imagine what a laugh I had when I saw your image! :-) Perhaps I should bring one of the youngsters of the 1980s and we can compare with the 1929, and see if it's still drinkable? On another note, I think it would be better if you posted your pictures on Commons. That way they're available for all language versions, and they (can) get categorized with all the other wine-related pictures already there. Tomas e (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, looking strange didn't stop me! :) The senior is a mystery, some say it's long spoiled and others (though not many) it's finally reaching its prime. Soon I need to decide if it's to be experienced in some ceremonious way or I take some ancients the long trip for recorking. I'm sure you're right about Commons, I wasn't sure if the licensing was really appropriate for that, but see that's what is usually done. I don't suppose a bot is going to offer to do it for me, but that kind of transwiki thing is quickly done I guess. M URGH   disc.  00:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, but the upload option "from another Wikimedia project" perhaps saves you a little time, if it recycles comments - I haven't really tested. Tomas e (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked a little into it. There are currently ASCII naming problems (!) so all my picky château have to become chateau, and it looks like they all need to be uploaded locally imbetween, I couldn't see any "direct" lazyman options, but it doesn't seem like too much work.. M URGH   disc.  09:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ASCII??? I've never noticed that with Commons! There are e.g. Image:Blaufränkisch.jpg and Image:Château Margaux.jpg without any problems, so I would have guessed your circumflexes would survive... Tomas e (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Really? This Move-to-commons assistant says "most non-ASCII characters in filenames will be "ASCIIfied". Some asian characters will break altogether. Fix is on the to-do list" but if this just isn't true I'll be glad to ignore it. Of course! I misunderstood, this is a bug in this guy's script and has nothing to do with Commons.. duh. Good news then. M URGH   disc.  15:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I had them done. Correctly I hope. Good to have them properly placed before the next AOC pic batch. M URGH   disc.  22:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems quite OK to me. Few people who are used to categorizing enwiki articles are likely to make "errors" on Commons. But just as here, parts of the category structure leaves some things to be desired. (I've put in a little gnome work on wine-related images, but more remains.) Among problems more commonly found in Commons than in enwiki> overcrowding of "root" categories (e.g. putting everything in "Wine") and no use of categories as all is another. It seems that some people upload images for articles they're working on and just see it as a "dumping place" for images and think it's enough that they know the image's file name. Tomas e (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw what you mean. I'm sure an inspired soul could devote a lot of time to sort (and then maintain) a good category system. M URGH   disc.  12:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

New French AOC articles
Hey Murgh, I noticed in your sandbox that you have a lot of nifty new French AOC articles in the works. When you transfer a few of them over to mainspace, let me know. There is a lot of good potential DYK material in there. Or you can feel free to nominate them as well. :) AgneCheese/Wine 02:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Agne, thanks for noticing. It's a *little* chaotic there ATM (getting the crude stuff over with first), but when I feel the info distribution is logical and have put it into somewhat working sentences I'd love your help with making it worthwhile for DYK nom. I'll certainly let you know when I transfer. M URGH   disc.  03:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

New category in Wikimedia Commons
Hi, I go here per the instructions over at Commons. I'd just like to draw your attention to the newly created commons:Category:Wine labels which I created to take a dent out of the overcrowding of the commons:Category:Wine bottles (especially when taken together with commons:Category:Winebottles). My intention was that full-bottle images could go into the "old" category while closeups of the labels could go into the new one. And you've probably been the most prolific uploader of such images recently. A lot of old Bx, by the way! Tomas e (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC) (commons:User:Tomas er)


 * Allright. That makes sense. I shall populate it :^) M URGH   disc.  17:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK congratulations!

 * hurrah for that! M URGH   disc.  14:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Médoc
Hello Murgh, there seems to be some confusion about the AOC Médoc in relation to AOC Haut-Médoc. The AOC Médoc only covers what once was called Bas-Médoc, i.e., the less notable northern part of the Médoc peninsula, but which apparently didn't want to be called "lower...". Thus, Haut-Médoc is not an appellation within AOC Médoc as you wrote in the H-M article. The only AOC which covers the entire Médoc peninsula is AOC Bordeaux (and the other AOCs which follow the same border). To cover the entire area of what is colloquially called Médoc you have to consider AOC Haut-Médoc + AOC Médoc, which do not overlap. If you have the World Atlas of Wine, check their overview map of Bordeaux! I have the second-latest edition (2001, reprinted in 2005), in that one it's on p. 83. Perhaps we need to explain this difference between Médoc (general geographic term and colloquial term for a subregion of Bordeaux) and AOC Médoc clearer in a some of the article? Since you're engaged in editing anything Bordelais with gusto, you're probably the right person to include such pedagogical comments where they belong... Tomas e (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you engage, but I'm pretty confident about the way I interpreted the sources. An estate may be located in the Haut-Médoc zone (or Margaux for that matter), and not meet the H-M directives -but the Médoc directives (such as a slightly more forgiving base yield) and therefore cling on to the Médoc declaration without resorting to go Bordeaux generic. INAO's Médoc text  and medoc.com  give me the strong impression that Médoc AOC does cover the entire peninsula, and overlaps H-M and the other communals. A problem seems to be many sources simplify this and just describe Bas-Médoc which is afer all the practical truth. I'm all for working to reach the same conclusion and further tweaking the explanation to be as good as possible, but it isn't easy stuff ;-) My WAoW is from 1971 unfortunately, so I wouldn't count on pages corresponding.  M URGH   disc.  19:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right - I read the sources you reference in the same way you do! Funny, because the WAoW clearly depicts the AOC Médoc as an area distinct from AOC Haut-Médoc; they are separatley coloured areas in difference from the AOC Bordeaux area which is shown as a wider outline, which is the graphical style WAoW usually uses for overlapping areas. In the text they first tell about Margaux and Pauillac being referred to as Médoc wine and to on to tell "But the appellation Médoc is both more limited and less prestigious."! The same story is told in Munskänkarnas educational material, where I probably picked it up. I'm not surprised that Munskänkarna is wrong now and then, but I am surprised in noting errors in a "core subject" with Hugh & Jancis! If you're going to be wrong, it's good to have good company! :-) Tomas e (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know unless there is an alibi for keeping it simple, my pre-Jancis WAoW does that a bit. (they both have books that are considerably more detailed, yes? I don't own any yet..) Maybe in light of all practical application, that crossovers never happen and sheer impossibility of describing it elegantly..? Munskänkarna seems like good company too! :^D M URGH   disc.  23:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And thank you for the heart-warming edit summaries :) M URGH   disc.  23:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Alexis Lichine's classification of Bordeaux wine
Very interesting reading! As a left bank fan (those days I'm not a Riesling fanatic to the exclusion of everything else, that is), who tends to appreciate Margaux the most, I've noticed that the 1855 classification doesn't say everything. While I've read that Parker has opined something like "ditch the whole thing", I wasn't aware that such a comprehensive attempt at reclassification had been made. Of course, today the probability of achieving a reclassification of Médoc must be much lower than 40-something years ago, considering that the price spread just seems to have increased. Anyway, this article proves just how much interesting wine material that can be added to our 'pedia. Tomas e (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. Yes sometimes the sources reveal concise, fascinating stories. Given the weirdness of such an old system staying so influential it's maybe not so strange that there have been dramatic details along the way. Personally I wouldn't mind at some point during my lifetime, to see it evolve into a more consumer-involved system of 'sports-like' leagues where all parties interested would get a chance to opine and affect in some small way who gets to be promoted, demoted and called 'champion', but how likely is that? ;^) M URGH   disc.  06:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I remember Neal Martin of Wine Journal (later swallowed by eRP) in his rather wacko style writing something like "since nothing can possibly have changed since 1855 - no snickering in the back, please!". To be quite honest, it's difficult to claim that a classification which allows the châteaux to swap land with each other within the appellation without the 1st-5th Cru classification being affected, actually is based on terroir. Tomas e (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes it's a tough sell, and yet still written in stone; have to like the "snickering in the back" comment. Of course what there is a case for, is the plain reality of money, of big earners having the better resources to produce the better product. But it would be nice to see the element of common sense introduced in one's lifetime. M URGH   disc.  13:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The 2005s are coming!
I'm so excited! It's like Christmas. :) I'm (hopefully) getting some petite chateauxs in next week. Did you get any futures before the prices went bonkers? AgneCheese/Wine 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can imagine you are if you beat the bonkers phase, good luck with those. No, I didn't get in on that.. life loving the wine is quite different for us who are currently under the protective umbrella of Vinmonopolet. It's like trusting Big Brother. M URGH   disc.  10:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh my! That is no fun at all. I was able to get a few bottles for personals use (mostly Cru Bourgeois such as Chasse-Spleen, one of my personal favs). My one "score" was a Cos d'Estournel which I will probably spend at least the next 10 years in an epic internal battle about when do I open it. :p One wine that I would love to get, but alas is too expensive and too limited, is the Haut-Brion Blanc which is supposed to be the top white wine of the entire vintage. AgneCheese/Wine 17:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right, limited fun indeed. I envy you that can play this game, at least as long as I'm living in this country. From my perspective, with Chasse-Spleen and other bargain Bourgeoises, it seems like several potential scores. I endeavour to sample the Haut-Brion Blanc someday too, but the wish list is long. Who among the 05s did not have a reportedly great year? For us up in the world's corner, the best bet is saving our money for summer visits to France, and then there is no dilemma about holding out for 10 years. M URGH   disc.  22:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * While the US distribution system is FAR from perfect, reading more about the Vinmonopolet does make it seem pretty serviceable. As for 05, what really excites me is the broad quality across the board-Right bank, left bank, Entre-deux-mers as well as white, red and sweet wines. That means that in addition to the great bargain crus, the lower end "Mass market" wines like Mouton-Cadet, Mouiex, etc, will also be of relative higher quality than the norm. My hope is that those entry level wines will introduce more novice drinkers to the immense potential of Bordeaux and potentially be an eye opening experience. I remember a similar "awakening" happening (at least here in the States) in 82 and I would love to see a repeat with the 05's. AgneCheese/Wine 23:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes you won't catch me defending the monopoly, in fact I am considering devoting some sweat to join in the fight against it.. In the US the potential spectre (and consumer joy) is vastly wider, but I guess this is usually given. A new wine (Bdx and all) awakening would be very welcome, especially here in the land of beer-into-oblivion. M URGH   disc.  23:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Explanations on a sentence
Excuse me, I need an help: I am not American and I need to know the explanation of a sentence. Would u be so kind to translate it to me? The sentence is what the hizzle for shizzle? Thank u if u wanna help me--89.96.198.38 (talk) 11:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not US either, but I'm guessing it is a way of expressing surprise, see -izzle if that helps any. Sorry I can't be more helpful.. M URGH   disc.  12:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox title parameter apology
Hi, I noticed over on Template:Infobox French Winery that you got momentarily tripped up by the change in the meaning of the "title" parameter for infobox that I just recently implemented. Sorry about that, I couldn't think of a more elegant way to structure things and still allow both forms of infobox titling to be easily used. Bryan Derksen (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, I was briefly confused, but by copying your fix at the Graphicnovelbox template, it looks all solved. Cheers. M URGH   disc.  11:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Companion
Hello Murgh! In the entry on The Oxford Companion to Wine, you included it in the Category:1989 books. I would rather have been considering Category:1994 books, the year of the first edition according to the article, but I thought I should ask if you had some clever reason for chosing 1989? Tomas e (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oy. Nothing but a forgetful omission. I started off with a "template" from another Oxford book and didn't think to change it. 94 is no doubt the right choice. I'll fix it if you haven't already. M URGH   disc.  23:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Flavescence dorée
Good start. If you add any more agricultural plant diseases, pop a link on my talk page, please, and I'll copy edit and babysit them for you. Maybe I'll add references. Particularly willingly as you made a solid start on this article. --Blechnic (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Sure, I'll let you know next time I come by this field. M URGH   disc.  07:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

sorry my bad
sorry, my bad on the article michelin_guide, i apparently confused something and reverted in allready reverted out vandalism instead of the other way around... Gillis (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, NP, it looked like a casual slip coming from an experienced editor. Cheers, M URGH   disc.  20:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

1855 prehistory
Hello Murgh, I don't know if you're a happy owner of a copy of Hugh Johnson's The Story of Wine, which I read rather recently. On p. 197-199 (2005 ed), about 1.5 page is devoted to explaining the prehistory of the 1855 classification. Apparently the classification was much more a codification of something that already existed, including many of the terms used. I think it would be interesting to include this material somewhere in our articles. But where? Should the Bordeaux Wine Official Classification of 1855 article be updated with a history section, or should classification history be added to History of Bordeaux wine? As something of our Bordelais-in-chief, what is your opinion? Tomas e (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the nice title. No, not a happy owner, a library loan once, but I covet it. The source I do have, Peppercorn's Bordeaux goes somewhat into the 30 years pre-1855 ratings and I think it's definitely is a good area to expand. As for where, my feeling is both articles should touch on it but a section about the evolution of classifications to the History article would be great. The 1855 article feels to me it is most missing a section about the details of the events of that year, to a greater extent than what is in the introduction. But I'm sure there's a lot interesting to include and I'll follow your lead when the nice weather has left us. ;^) M URGH   disc.  08:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it costs GBP 19.50 from Amazon UK, which I suppose will not even get you even a single bottle of a 5th cru of the 2005 vintage, so I think it is a good buy. :-) I'll start make some additions in the near future. To me, it was interesting to read that the 1855 classification was not "a spur of the moment", which may explain why it has been so long-lived. Tomas e (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes the deal is good; being a light traveller, I'm actually more concerned about the weight and size ;^) Does it give 1855 that much of a "longterm effort" impression? I had a sense the weight it received eventually came to surprise people at the time, especially those who doubted there was any point to participating at all (such as Lanessan).. M URGH   disc.  09:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, that was my "aha!" observation. If the classification evolved gradually over several decades, rather than being a snapshot of quality and prices in 1855, it makes more sense why it lived on. (Except for being self-perpetuating and being in the high-classed properties' interest...) That also makes me think about the statement of 1855 being drawn up on the basis of the prices. If the trade had developed the classification informally over the decade, wouldn't the proto-classification have already been one of the main factors in the prices requested, rather than an individual assessment of each wine in each vintage, in a time before an army of wine critics could easily descend on Bordeaux for en primeur tastings? But of course, this is OR on my part. As to those that didn't participate, they were perhaps rather few, and all regions have always had their excentric owners, such as Paul César Rival of Château Guiraud who crashed an airplane in his neighbour Yquem's vineyards and embarked on a large-scale replacement of Sémillon with Sauvignon Blanc, which even today makes Guiraud more Sauvignon-heavy than the other Sauternes. Tomas e (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Chasse-Spleen & 1855
About the intro of Château Chasse-Spleen, which I just stumbled on while browsing through the Start-class articles for C-class candidates. Did the 1855 Classification actually include properties below the 5th cru??? Wasn't the whole Cru Bourgeois thing informal? Also, it seems unencyclopedic to speculate on a reclassification; wouldn't it be better to state something like "in today's wine market it generally trade on par with Fifth growths"? Tomas e (talk)


 * You're right it's wrong. It was in 1932 the selections were made, but don't think it was an informal effort. Yes that sentence doesn't look proper encyclopedic. Lichine and Peppercorn's enthusiasm seem to have affected me. Should be snipped. M URGH   disc.  12:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * About informal - I should perhaps have added "at that time" - I was thinking of the application of the term Cru Bourgeois in 1855 and thereabouts. Considering the latest legal turns surrounding Cru B and the St E classification it seems that the French way is high formal and even more confusing. Tomas e (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Confusion on the right bank
Hello, saw in Decanter that this week, the 1996 StE classification is back after the entire classification seem to be scrapped last week. I've updated the Classification of Saint-Émilion wine article with the information on the legal turns. Since you polished the article's table to its present form, perhaps you'd be interested in finding a suitable way to present both the 1996 and 2006 classifications in the article. Bearing in mind, of course, that neext week something completely different may be valid. :-) Tomas e (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. I'm very weary of whatever we do being quickly outdated. But sure, I can have a go at a solution. M URGH   disc.  12:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Solar System
I noticed your edit, and would like your contribution to the talk page on Talk:Solar_System. -HarryAlffa (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

New articles
I have done the move for Le Petit Noël. As I am starting in Wikipedia, I make some errors. You should also check the articles La Patrouille des Castors‎, Ducoboo (redirected to Ducobu, but maybe it is an error), L'oncle Paul and Georges Troisfontaines ? Thanks. --Pah777 (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. I can take a look at those. Don't worry about errors, since everyone has done them. I could suggest that you try WP:USERFY when you have many different just started articles spread out thin, so you keep them in your own namespace (i.e. while it's less apparent to other editors what you are doing) until they're ready for public use, and then move them..  M URGH   disc.  12:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Vega
Greetings,

I have undone your "undo" and reverted back to a version similar to that of User:24.234.153.69 about Vega. The thing is, according to the article on Qi Xi and to a few other sources I have read, it does happen that once a year, magpies make a bridge so that Vega and Altair can "meet" - probably a reference to the Perseids around that time of the year.

I have kept the magpie story outside of the book reference, though.

CielProfond (talk) 03:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. As an uncommented entry by an anon, it appeared insincere, but thanks for looking at it closely. M URGH   disc.  03:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Bande Dessinée
Hello ! Today I created a portal dedicated to the Bande Dessinée genre, ie franco-belgian comics. I saw that you are in the WikiProject Comics/European comics work group, so I insisted on inviting you to look at the portal and to help me manage it, because I am a newest contributor. I think we can link the portal to the european comics work group and move this project toward a "Band Dessinée work group". Do you think it is a good idea and could help me for that ? --18:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Pah777 (talk)

CfD nomination of Category:Spanish comic book titles
I have nominated spanish comic book titles for renaming to spanish comics titles. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Hiding T 09:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Carandache 1860.jpg
Hey ! There is a little problem on that image you uploaded from Lambiek : Caran d'Ache is supposed to be 2 years old in 1860, but his moustache and tallness let me think he is not so young... Do you know where to find the real date of the picture ? Encolpe (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. You're right that given date is hard to accept, and yet that what Lambiek states. Looks like it could easily be 40 years later. Not sure how to verify, unless a mail to Lambiek could result in the discovery of a typo from their sources. I've mailed with them once before, and though they weren't quick to reply, they were helpful. M URGH   disc.  22:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, Thank you ! Encolpe (talk) 10:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sine Qua Non
Please stop pointing Sine Qua Non to the disambiguation page; Since that title is a capitalized version of sine qua non (note the capitalisation), which is an article; we cannot have the capitalizes version point to the dab page. Capitalisation is a part of the title, and both articles have a hat-note linking to the dab page. Please consult Disambiguation. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 23:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't be condescending. There is little rocket science to this but I believe your priorities are wrong, but I'll deal with it the slow way. M URGH   disc.  06:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I began a long dreaded "Requested change" on Talk:Sine Qua Non, but it came to me that the most judicious solution was to simply have another DAB, and I was rellieved that if we can agree on this then the issue would be solved and done. M URGH   disc.  07:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Two DAB pages is even worse... The fact is, anyone looking for the capitalized title is expected to go directly to the intended article. BTW. I don't see a "requested change". — Edokter  •  Talk  • 10:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Two DAB pages is not as abnormal as you seem to think, and as an admin I would expect you to be a little embarrassed to commit 3R on such an opinionated basis. The article you are promoting is not the one most people typing in the cap search would like to arrive at. M URGH   disc.  11:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Talk:Sine Qua Non ended in consensus. The slow way works. M URGH   disc.  07:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Generic/Regional Bordeaux AOCs
Hello! As you are our resident Mr. Bx I have a little question for you. I updated the Bordeaux AOC article with some additional information. I was planning to have a go at Bordeaux supérieur as well, but then I started thinking. Separate articles for Bx sec and Bx moelleux (which so far are redlinks) would not really make sense - the are basically the same as white Bx and Bx sup respectively. Also, a lot of info would be repeated between the articles, since there are rather minor differences in official requirements between them. So I was starting to think that we perhaps should put all "generic" Bordeaux AOCs together into one article, with redirects from all individual AOCs. (With the possible exception of Crémant, which should probably go into a Crémant article.) Perhaps Regional Bordeaux AOCs is the best name of such an article; my impression is that generique not is an official term. Thoughts? Tomas e (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. Yes I agree. I did start one such userfied page to include all those, (draft: User:Murgh/Generic Bordeaux AOCs), but sort of lost my winter momentum and never came close enough to make those decisions and put it out. I could see myself going for it (the remaining Bdx appellation soup) at some point, but if there's anything you can extract from it now that would be cool. Although appellations génériques gets thrown around a lot, maybe as you say, "regional" is most correct officially. M URGH   disc.  15:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I started the expansion, and started to compile a comparison table with basic info from the AOC regulations. And it turned out that several pieces of info on (CIVB) is in fact wrong, or a least do not check with the AOC regulations as written. Two examples: bx.com says that the alcohol level of red Bordeaux AOC must be between 10% and 13%, while the AOC regulations only specify a minimum of 10% for reds, and no maximum. (Only white Bordeaux sec has this range specified.) bx.com says that Bordeaux supérieur must be aged a minimum of 12 months, while the AOC rules say that they can be sold from 1 July the year after harvest, i.e., after 9-10 months. Yet another case of sloppy fact checking in the wine world. Tomas e (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice start. I guess it doesn't suprise me so much that bordeaux.com take a little too "light" approach to data facts, but that's very sloppy. It's too bad. I expect you'll have seen this news so there should also maybe also be a section on Côtes de Bordeaux? Well, I suppose it isn't finalized yet. M URGH   disc.  21:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup, Decanter News is a place I check regularly. But I want to see the published version first. I would for example be good to know if it is implemented one AOC with four "mots" (or whatever they call them) or four AOCs. My judgment of a separate AOC is usually what appears in the title of an AOC document. Tomas e (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Château de Lussac (Lussac Saint-Emilion)
The article Château de Lussac (Lussac Saint-Emilion) has been nominated for deletion. You may want to visit Articles for deletion/Château de Lussac (Lussac Saint-Emilion). -- Eastmain (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I don't know this one but I'll take a look. M URGH   disc.  16:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it just me or isn't it a bit strange to see someone relist a an article on AfD to "to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached" just 5 days after the first nomination? Or perhaps we just had the wrong opinions? Tomas e (talk) 08:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It seemed quite quick, but I think it's pretty usual when there are very few responses, notifying projects and such. Thankfully it feels undramatic when the subject doesn't interest scores of SPAs or professional hatchetpeople ;) M URGH   disc.  08:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Your blind reverts
Victor Westhoff is a significant historical figure in the field of phytosociology and he is not a red link. Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I see it isn't now, but in the future you may want to do this process in the opposite order. See also linking to non-existing articles makes it difficult to slide by AGF. M URGH   disc.  10:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering his role in phytosociology, I invoke WP:IAR. Viriditas (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not. me too ;)  M URGH   disc.  10:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:Indian comics writers
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Indian comics writers, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Indian comics writers has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Indian comics writers, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Bordeaux pictures
Hello Murgh, it turned out that the dewiki pictures of Château Margaux were part of a lot of several Bordeaux pictures taken in 2002 and uploaded by the same user in September 2005. I've transferred them all to commons (using the nifty tool CommonsHelper) and categorized them - some were from estates that have enwiki articles, and some of other estates. So far I haven't included them in the articles - I thought I'd leave it to you to choose. The simplest way to find them is probably to check in my user contribution on commons, and focus on today's date. I think you'll be able to find them although I've also transferred and edited some other files. Tomas e (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool, you did the leg work. Thanks, I'll have a look. M URGH   disc.  18:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Château d'Angludet
Hello! Your submission at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed. There still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 11:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. M URGH   disc.  13:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Assessment
Hello Murgh, I saw that you have reassessed a lot of château articles from mid to low. I just wanted to add that I agree with you, and I noted these overassessments before - but since they were many I never bothered to do anything about them. Being in the 1855 classification means that a separate article is justified, but >low requires something else IMHO. Château Palmer is a case in point - long considered the second finest Margaux and probably standard-setting when Château Margaux was underperforming. Thus, mid seems justified for them as a humble 3me cru. Tomas e (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for giving a nod. Yes, the rating was too high but there were off-puttingly many of them, but I finally got a bulk out of the way. I was responsible for quite a few. There are still some left, but those are either borderliners of historical significance (Lynch-Bages is no mere 5.cru!) best left for neutral minds to decide, or I've overlooked them. M URGH   disc.  19:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.

StE episode n+1
Hello, have you noticed that the reinstatement of the demoted chx has been thrown out (again)? I think they're now up to more legal turns than Koch/Rodenstock, which is "impressive"! What a farce! Tomas e (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That is amazing. No I hadn't seen that yet. I really thought they had managed to finally sweep that up so that noone would have any reason to be upset anymore after last week. Someone in the soup over there really loves the drama, thrill and limelight. M URGH   disc.  22:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Franciacorta (wine)
--Dravecky (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Mads Gilbert
--Dravecky (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Assistance please: Lagrein article edits
Hi. I'm a very low tech and inexperienced Wiki user/contributor. As a grape grower and winemaker of Lagrein in Australia I've been attempting to put some of my first-hand knowledge of the variety and relationships with the Australian viticultural players into the Lagrein entry. Your edits and comments have left me somewhat confused and wondered if you could assist me? Given I'm the source of much of the information, how do I reference it? One of my early attempts was to reference my entry to myself with something like 'unpublished notes from viticulturalist and winemaker N. Clark of Amietta'. Then I read that entries should where possible be verifiable. So I instead added some notes to our Amietta website and referenced/linked to those notes. You have subsequently deleted that reference/link: your entry explaining your deletion was that 'amietta.com is a commercial link (click to buy) and can't count as WP:RS'. I haven't been able to find anything in the 'Wiki policies and guidelines' section that precludes linking to a site belonging to a commercial entity - but perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place. Yes, the page on the Amietta website where I'd written the notes does have a 'buy wine' link at the bottom of the page, but this just takes you to our 'buy wine' page where you need to click on another link to download an order form. Not likely to suck the credit card from the wallet of the unwary user I wouldn't have thought. I also wasn't sure how having the information on our website made it an unreliable source.  Finally, given the rarity of the wine in Australia, I also felt that it was relevant to list the current producers but you deleted them as well. If it's OK to name Bordeaux producers in an entry, I'm not clear why it's a problem to name Lagrein producers in Australia. As I said, I'm new to all this and at a technical level, struggle to do much more than write an email. I'd appreciate any responses/suggestions/advice. Feel free to email me directly (initially via the 'contact us' page on our website) as it would make life easier for me to correspond.  RegardsAmietta (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, Amietta, I'll respond to you here first. Sorry if I've been brief in my reasoning, as it is often simplest to defer to Wikipedia policy. The reason I removed your unpublished notes is chiefly WP:OR (original research) which is a barrier against personal opinion inserts, which has many obvious practical benefits in the worst case scenario. WP:RS (reliable sources) requires us to utilise (third-party) that are "dependable", allowing us to easily attribute Wikipedia info per WP:V (verifiability). Finally, WP:ELNO (external links to be avoided) deems which external links are undesirable, one type being web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services. Although many sites promoting a product may possibly include valuable scholarly information, it is policy to not use these in our references. These things shouldn't be black/white, and it is always possible to invite discussion on a talk page to look deeper into what is community consensus, however the page in question with both instances "Buy wine" and "For more information on Lagrein, see Wikipedia/Lagrein" aren't what is normally seen in RS. As far as the list of Aus. producers of Lagrein, it struck me as WP:UNDUE in comparison to the weight of info on Lagrein in Alto Aldige, in light of the rarity aspect, and although I removed the producer list from the article, I did retain the page reference so that list is only a click away for the interested reader. Again, these things can always be discussed openly on the talk page, but I responded to policy as I saw it. Yes, producers from Bordeaux and other places do get named, but this should only occur when the producer passes WP:CORP in their own right, that they are found notable and are described by third-party sources, and are likely to have/get their own wikipedia article. Considering the amount of attempted publicity inserts of less known producers to grape and region articles who seem to care little about the encyclopedia aspect of wikipedia, the line has to be drawn somewhere. In any case it is usually best not to refer to the faults of other articles (in the spirit of what is known as WP:OTHERCRAP). I hope all this isn't discouraging, as I think you are making a positive contribution, and the Lagrein article is better for your efforts. It would be great if you in your capacity as an experienced viticulturalist could further lead the article towards published scholarly sources. I hope this helps. M URGH   disc.  14:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Lagrein once more
Hello Murgh. Thanks for the feedback. Perhaps I've considered Wiki as a centralised source of credible information rather than an encyclopedic document; also I had only skimmed over the various areas of advice for new contributors. The problem with Lagrein is that there are very few published sources that mention the variety or the wine at all. In history we regard first-hand oral sources as valid, but not apparently in Wiki. Hopefully, the information I provided is of use. Vintage is upon us, so perhaps when the wines are safely in barrel I'll see if I can make any useful additions.  Regards Amietta (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, unfortunately I don't know of anything first-hand that passes the scrutiny of Wikipedia. To freely add information I can only suggest a specialized wiki, such as the clean-slate project grapes.wikia.com where notes could be added without restriction, but with so little Lagrein print documentation maybe you will consider publication? Good luck with the harvest. M URGH   disc.  11:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Haut Brion
Just wanted to say "Good work" on the Château Haut-Brion article. So here goes: Good work.--Nwinther (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for saying so. Much appreciated. M URGH   disc.  15:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam
Denbot (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Bocuse D'Or
Great article. I an going to nominate it for a front page DYK. BTW, you do not assess you own article, bad form and all. --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 02:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but don't worry, it's already in the DYK queue. I wasn't aware of any bad form associated with assessing an article started by oneself. Well, high or top wouldn't look good, but these things are according to norms, and if there is disagreement it is an easy and non-controversial fix.. M URGH   disc.  02:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ingrid Espelid Hovig
By the way, can you think of a suitable DYK hook for Ingrid Espelid Hovig? I can't think of one. Punkmorten (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible. Rosiestep (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

--Dravecky (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
, thanks for catching that. Chillum 05:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No prob. Glad there wasn't a surprising new reason for deleting it. M URGH   disc.  05:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Chef disambiguation
Hi,

if an "esoteric programming language designed by David Morgan-Mar" is considered a relevant disambiguation by you, then why isn't the CHEF-Gel-Method? Just because there is no article about it yet? I was going to write one soon and just made this little entry because I might forget it. Anyway, are there any general rules concerning the relevance of an edit, or was this just an arbitrary decision? Shinryuu (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. No, not arbitrary, just going by WP:MOSDAB, and specifically MOS:DABRL. A DAB entry with a redlink may be fine if it is supplemented by 1 bluelink that gives a directly relevant context of notability. In cases of doubt it is best to wait for an actual article to be in place first, since it is a guide to disambiguate existing articles after all. If you might forget, why not start a draft on your userpage? Cheers, M URGH   disc.  23:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, it's good to know that. I edit Wikipedia just once in a while and don't keep track of all the new rules. When I started five years ago I studied all the rules, but back then Wikipedia was still in a state of near anarchy ;-) Shinryuu (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. Yes, somewhat more rules and structure has crept in since then. M URGH   disc.  00:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Paul Draper photo
The photo is mine. The site wouldn't let me upload it. I thought I read that ShareAlike was allowed, but I can license it however you like. Crazyboblee (talk 16:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)<


 * I see you solved it. Very nice. M URGH   disc.  23:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Peter Suschitzky
(Peter Suschitzky: rv revert 79.81.50.212: good, but please produce WP:RS and don't revert deletion of weasel worded sentence) Murgh, My intervention was only intended to rectify a false information contained on Wikipedia. If you prefer hold on the Wikipedia Site this false information, I cannot do anything more for you.

The mentioned error is reported since several weeks on many sites on the internet and I'm convinsed that the initial author of the article about Peter Suschitzty had no reliable source about the place of his birth. This problem is exactly the limit of the free encyclopedie. Nobody had a problem to accept a false information, now you are asking for reliable sources...

Incredible but through!

Good luck!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.81.50.212 (talk • contribs)


 * Well I was hoping you would be motivated to put a source to justify the change, since your relationship to the subject can't help Wikipedia per WP:V and WP:RS (and WP:COI), and then there isn't any reason to revert the removal of weasel word sentences. Applying a reliable source and making the fact attributable may not be a difficult to as your note seems to state. The only RS I could find supported the birth place as Warsaw. Feel free to contest the source, on talk page, because if you know a truth that sources have wrong, surely it must be published correctly somewhere. M URGH   disc.  00:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Spirou et Fantasio
I like your work on the Spirou et Fantasio albums. Have you read the French versions? I see that we are both Norwegians. I would have written the articles on the remaining albums myself, if I had read the French versions. I hope that you, or someone else, will continue the good work and write the remaining articles! --Oddeivind (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Odd Eivind. I started on those very motivated by the thought that WP needed the articles, and especially the Franquin work that was so important to me when I grew up, read in Norwegian. As I fell from the albums during the Fournier period and had a revisit with Tome & Janry, this pattern was mirrored when I went through these articles, and I couldn't see myelf finishing the list alone. I found that in making articles especially on the later work it became too tough to find reliable sources, and I didn't just want to start stubs with fiction summaries. I actually do have nearly all of them in French, but unfortunately I'm not that good at the language. I can't see myself writing the remainders unless it is based on good RS, and preferably in English, which to date seems unlikely. M URGH   disc.  03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, maybe you could comment on the nomination for deletion of the article about José Luis Munuera. I was, to put it mildly, pretty surprised to find it nominated for speedy (sic!) deletion! --Oddeivind (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Glad to see the hastily and very inappropriately applied speedy tag was quickly dealt with. Getting that type of reaction with a 3 minute old article is quite annoying, but considering there are several newpage editors who act similarly, there is something to be said for userfying the page first and not putting it into public namespace until the core references are in place. Cheers, M URGH   disc.  02:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

COI
Hello Murgh, Yesterday you undid an edit of mine (on the Tyler Colman article). What did you mean by "a COI link"? Fabiena (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Fabiena. The edit you made, which deleted a reference, a WP:RS, replaced it with a blog url, one which has in the past been rather aggressively inserted into wikipedia. The action (with the edsum "Current source", when the existing RS was not outdated) bore resemblance to a series of edits made by several user accounts last year with an agenda to use wikipedia to promote exposure for this blog. These edits were of a WP:COI nature, in addition to being contrary to WP:RS and WP:EL, but there was no reason to assume your edit was COI, so I am sorry about the insinutation in "seemingly replacement w a COI link". Had you not deleted a RS in the process I would have reacted otherwise. M URGH   disc.  20:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Murgh. Thank you for taking the time to explain. Now I understand what is COI and how you might have thought it was involved in this case. For me a 2005 article is dated for showing notoriety on the Web, but I suppose it is my opinion. Cheers. Fabiena (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Kjell Erik Killi Olsen
Hi Murgh. You recently reverted a change of mine to Kjell Erik Killi Olsen. I appreciate I may not have been 100 percent correct, but I can find no reference to an entity called Kundskolen in Trondheim. I'm sure it should be either be Art Schools, remembering this is an English encyclopaedia, or it should be Kundskole if it is a proper name. Can you help? Jan1nad (talk) 11:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Jan1nad. I reverted that edit as it is a given name not open to translation, and that you couldn't find any references could be down to the above misspelling. Correctly translated "Kunstskole n " is in English " the art school" with a specified article (ie. art school = kunstskole, art schools = kunstskoler), and Kunstskolen i Trondheim is the former name of Kunstakademiet i Trondheim (KIT) prior to 1987, now a faculty under NTNU. Reviewing it, it seems best to alter "Kunstskolen in Trondheim" to its entire name "Kunstskolen i Trondheim". Hope that helps. Cheers,  M URGH   disc.  16:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's great, thanks! Jan1nad (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Wine cats
Thanks for fixing some of those categories. If you haven't already, you may want to take a look at the Wine Project's discussion regarding our recent issues with categories. Your views would also be welcomed over at WikiProject Wine/Category tree. AgneCheese/Wine 21:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there. This category issue goes a lot deeper than I first assumed. Work, travel and outdoors have limited my WP activities these last months to shallow attention and infrequent diversion edits, but as the outdoors option is rapidly ending up here I imagine I'll be more 'in deep' soon. The Category tree looks like a smart list and worthwhile endeavour. M URGH   disc.  12:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Syrah
Hello, I put back the source I used for some statements on the history of the "corruption" of Syrah to Shiraz. While not an ideal source, it contained details on the evolution that I haven't found elsewhere, such as OCW, and those details fit nicely into an overall picture available in other sources. In this case I feel that it added to a narrative which makes the variety's history more understandable to those other editors and readers who may be inclined to disregard solid facts from DNA analysis and ampelography and forever try to introduce. But I let the "cn" tags remain due to the type of source. Cheers, Tomas e (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. I see the temptation with this research, but I feel forum posts by someone I don't know to be published are a very hard sell for RS. Instead, why not apply as references the Google books pages to the actual works that are referred to, such as Journal of a recent visit to the principal vineyards of Spain and France, James Busby (1834), A history and description of modern wines, Cyrus Redding (1836) and Gentleman's Magazine Vol. 156 "History of Wines" (July, 1834)? M URGH   disc.  22:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Now I need some DYK help
If you get a chance will you take a look at Irrigation in viticulture and tell me if anything "catchy" jumps out as a potential hook? My brain is fried from several days of heavy research and while I see things that interest us uber-wine-geeks, I'm having troubling stepping aside and seeing what might interest regular folks. It is just hard to make irrigation seem sexy. :P AgneCheese/Wine 03:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good hardcore article but not a lot of lewd DYK aspects I can spot ;) A bit technical for a shallow grabber so I'd first try the historical angle. How about "... that grape vine irrigation can be traced back through the history of wine to ancient vineyard sites in Armenia and Egypt...?" M URGH   disc.  14:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah I was worried that most of it was a little technical to be interesting. I think you're right about the history angle, I'll go with that. Thanks! AgneCheese/Wine 23:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL! Thanks for the catch. AgneCheese/Wine 23:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Those are easily missed by a fried brain. M URGH   disc.  00:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks for that, Chris :^) M URGH   disc.  14:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sommelier entry, re: commercial pitch under Education and certification
First of all, I apologize if the talk entry is in a weird format. I'm new to editing in Wikipedia. What I don't understand is why my entry that expands on Education is considered a commercial pitch, when the current information is basically a commercial pitch--and a monopoly on information--for one education institution among many, The Court of Master Sommeliers. Is it against Wikipedia's policies to expand information to cover more than one instituion in a category? And if so, then how does Wikipeidia decide which institution gets to represent them all? I'd write more about other sommelier training centers if I knew anything about them, but the point of Wikipedia, I thought, is to enable users to input knowledge that they are expert in. Please let me know why my entry keeps getting deleted, but the Court of Master Sommeliers information is fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aporianat (talk • contribs) 17:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's all right, no apology necessary. The key here is to restrict the coverage in Wikipedia to information that is covered elsewhere by reliable sources. Writing from our own personal knowledge is termed original research and one has to find a different outlet for that. But reporting information from other reputable sources and applying it in a neutral point-of-view will slide smoothly into our articles. Then, unless your fellow editors for some reason consider the additions undue, there is no problem, and you will have improved the article. What unfortunately triggers a fellow editor's revert action is external links additions contrary to EL policy and unnecessarily non-ecyclopedic language, peacock and weasel terms as they are called, especially problematic for a new editor that may be perceived as a single-purpose account.. but a straight, dry factual edit backed with a good source should stick fine anywhere in WP. I hope this helps, good luck. M URGH   disc.  18:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay. Thank you! So if I quote from Food & Wine Magazine, for example, would it be more reliable? I appreciate your feedback174.51.232.32 (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, Food & Wine is RS. For an overview of the formats to attribute various sources, you can look at WP:CITET. Cheers, M URGH   disc.  00:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Laura Fulk from MCAD
Hello, any reasons why you deleted this from MCAD's page? Even if she's a notable designer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.48.133 (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello 75.73.48.133. Fulk may well meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but inserting a redlink and attaching MCAD and selfpub urls as references is not the way to do it. If an article on Fulk based on RS is found appropriate there would be no problem having her listed among notable MCAD alumni. M URGH   talk  23:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Lettie_Teague ?
Was googling with thoughts of creating Lettie_Teague and found link to User:Murgh/Lettie_Teague -- it's like the 8th hit on google. You planning to move to WP main space soon? Gerardw (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. Looking at it, I'm not sure why I didn't already, I don't think I had planned to do any more with it. Guess just a little update is in order. M URGH   talk  15:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Wish "creating" articles was always this easy. Gerardw (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be nice. You're more than welcome to add some meat to it in this 4-5 day period and make it DYKworthy. M URGH   talk  02:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you got the basics ... never heard of her until she took over the Wall Street Journal column. I did look for some pics but everything google was popping up was copyrighted. Gerardw (talk) 02:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, just basics. Thought I'd ask in case you were a longtime F&W reader or other deep subject familiarity, because I don't feel it's enough to take to DYK. Cheers, M URGH   talk  03:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

peack and CV alert
18:38, 6 May 2010 Murgh (talk | contribs) (8,501 bytes) (peacock; CV alert) (undo)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Debra_Meiburg&action=history

Hi Murgh,

I'm new to wikipedia and wasn't sure what you mean by "peacock" and "CV alert". I have read relevant wikipedia documents but couldn't figure out why you set the alerts. can you explain a little bit as I am rather confused? maybe you can let me know which part of the article contains biased wording which need to be rephased to support neutral point of view.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nocdkey (talk • contribs) 02:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Nocdkey. I urge you to again review the referred documents and further familiarize yourself with the WP policies on WP:POV. The article as it currently stands bears little resemblance to other articles of comparable notability and attribution material. It is sectioned off and composed in a manner not unlike that of a rather self-praising CV, unrestrained name-dropping and listing non-notable competitions and publications, expansive language to make little crucial information take more space than needed, unlike an excyclopedic article. You will find articles on vastly more accomplished individuals considerably more subdued. There is also the matter of half the current references being unfit to pass WP:RS, and for examples of "peacock language", look to editorial phrasing like "rigorous", "well-known", "reputed". Hope that helps, M URGH   talk  19:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Murgn

Thanks for your assistance and I appreciate your advice. I'll keep working on it. - Nocdkey —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nocdkey (talk • contribs) 09:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

James Suckling
Hi there Murgh. In order to avoid future unnecessary conflict, let me please explain my recent edit of James Suckling. Thanks very much for your help in addressing these issues at least, because in this way we can solidify the article and improve it- which after your criticisms I believe it has been. I am more than happy to discuss it further here. Thanks. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have changed "counted among the world's most influential..." back to "regarded as one of the world's most influential..." since firstly it seems editors on wikipedia prefer this phrase e.g. Mostafa Amin, Albert Einstein, Mao Zedong, Milan, Akhil Reed Amar, Miles Davis etc and because secondly, this phrase is more accurately representative of the given sources which back up this claim. "One the world's most powerful wine critics" — the writer obviously forgot the "of" (and the other references for that matter, originally in Italian, my second language, "James Suckling è il grand connoisseur del mondo del vino" -Gentleman magazine and "quello che oggi è considerato il più influente giudice del mercato vitivinicolo mondiale" -Sommelier Toscana) is much closer to my version of this information: influential is the closest synonym there is to powerful and the rest of the reference is exactly the same to the current phrase.
 * I think it is fair to say that the guy is "one of the most experienced critics of vintage cigars" since it says exactly this at decanter.com, a secondary source leading wine publication (as I'm sure you're aware) with no affiliation to Suckling. Not quite sure why you are trying to say that he isn't - do you have some sort of personal vendetta against him or do you just not agree with his opinions? All I can say from a neutral point of view, is that you do seem to be trying to downplay his achievements and certainly from what I can gather about him from sources available to me (I am a wine drinker myself), he is widely considered as one of the most significant in his professions.
 * I apologise for my ineloquent mentioning of Suckling's early contribution to the success of the magazine. I must admit that it is not very well phrased. The source is Italian and sometimes it is hard to translate accurately, especially since the information is surrounded by other context. I have reworded this more neutrally and more articulately.
 * I'm not entirely sure why you removed the sentence about Suckling's first visit to Europe: I think that since Suckling's expertise is now Europe it is both notable when he first went there and where he went when he went there. The fact that after visiting Italy just once he began to dream of living there is also interesting.
 * I have added the specific reference you were asking for concerning Wine Spectator's inception.
 * I am not quite sure why you removed all the information about what Forbes Blog called the "backlash by some Spectator readers". I've already mentioned the reliability of the source, and I think that if you want to include what some people (me being one of them- he did not come over very well at all in the film, though I do think that it was more of a joke than anything else) thought of Suckling's appearance in Mondovino, you also have to include what some people thought of his departure from the magazine, especially since decanter thought it was notable enough to be documented.
 * I'm sorry that the section tasting style was not written in an encyclopaedic matter. The original articles were in Italian and both contained interviews where obviously Suckling spoke in the first person. I tried to translate it into third person but I agree it just came across as what I personally thought his tasting style was. I have translated the information again and rewritten it, sticking closer to the first person he replied in.


 * Hi there Jay-Sebastos. Thanks for your work on the article and reshaping some of your ideas which I now find closer to the Wikipedia language tone (as I understand it). I have some responses to your questions to me and those instances where I think the text isn't quite yet in the encyclopedic groove we should aim for.
 * Just first, no, I don't have a personal vendetta against Suckling (please believe I smile when I type this) as I did start this article when there was none and have been largely the main editor for updates and vandalism reverts. The intro as it is now I can go along with, although in terms of descriptions of "world regard" I prefer to err on the side of caution. The text should read neutral and balanced, and especially so when describing an individual one is fond of. The editorial voices that apply emotional nuance to judgements of his achievements must come from the sources we link to.
 * Also a wine drinker, I admit to having only a vague sense of his esteem in the cigar world but have no reason to argue against the phrasing of Decanter. You're right.
 * I do have an issue with the info on Suckling's first Italy visit with name dropping Gaja and Mastroberardino leading to his wish to one day move there, (while I find it OK personally interesting), I don't think it's sufficiently encyclopedic and good form to present the subject's thoughts and desires in this medium. It takes it to an editorial notch outside statements and actions. And even as a direct quote, "having seen Italy ..visited Gaja and Mastroberardino.. I decided that I would one day live there", I don't think it fits this sort of article. See how you feel about my amputated suggestion.
 * The statement supported by "Operazione Suckling", Sommelier Toscana suggesting Suckling in his first year at WS "invented" the top-100 list and this was a major reason for its initial burst of subscriber success is a problem for me. I can't see that's a claim he would make in an interview in this way so I'd rather leave that out until there is a sober way to put it.
 * The phrase "Suckling is one of Bordeaux wine's greatest supporters, changing its wine landscape during his time covering the region" isn't something we can write with such adamance, and especially when only backed by non-RS blog enjoybordeaux.com (even if it's a view close to held in sources such as William Echikson's Noble Rot). Undoubtedly influential as a 27-year consecutive en primeur rater, that bold a sentence shouldn't even be applied to Parker, but that Suckling is a loyal defender of Bdx in a time of its waning popularity is an important point to make, and I hope you like the direction I try to take it. And an alternative way to phrase "soft spot".
 * Your point about the backlash to the WS announcement is valid and I try another "dryish dictionary-like" suggestion.
 * Otherwise I've made some suggestions to the tasting style section which to me now feels like it's in an OK WP-tone and applied some minor MOS-mends to the refs. All in all I think you've come in and moved it along to a much better article and I appreciate it. Cheers, M URGH   talk  15:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you reply. You made some very good points and I appreciate that you took what I had to say on board.
 * I think you phrased the introduction very well. It is much better than both of our previous edits. I apologise for accusing you of having it in for Suckling, it was just that it seemed you did remove a lot of complementary material about the man - obviously part of it was just a mistake, and the rest was my tone, I see that now.
 * Maybe you're right about Suckling's first trip to Italy influencing him to go and live there. It is interesting for us but perhaps not highly encyclopaedic.
 * I don't think that either Suckling or the magazine which reported him having been the main contributing factor to Wine Spectator's early success are fallacious. We'll have to reword it differently I guess.
 * Thanks for finding additional more reliable references for his position on Bordeaux.
 * I think the only thing which needs to be done to the article is to find a suitable image for it. We should also reassess it since it clearly now surpasses the stub category. Anyway, I'm glad we could come to a consensus. Thanks. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem about the 'having it in for him'-thing. It made me chuckle. Yes indeed, an image would be very nice though I know from past experience (though license-related headache has made it years since I looked into it) that copyrighted imagery usually get slapped down quickly with so very few exceptions, so it becomes an issue of luck and patience. The two Flickr photos of him I could find are of the prohibited 'all rights reserved'-kind, in which case I believe the only option is to plead with the photographer. And yes, the way you phrase it above I think there is no doubt that Suckling was crucial to WS' early success. Just how to put it.. I do suspect however that in the near future there will be quite a bit more facilitating RS about him published as his new solo career gets on. Maybe. M URGH   talk  19:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Gaja (wine)
Hello! Your submission 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! Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to read the rules more closely. I already responded before you posted this notice.. M URGH   talk  21:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I am aware of the rules. However I am unclear what you mean. Are you suggesting that, (1) the edits on 16th August expanded the article in size by 5x or more, (2) prior to 16th August the article was only in userspace, or (3) something else? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly your #2. The article was in userspace (for quite a long time but this isn't relevant), and did not enter article mainspace until today, and is considered a new article under the DYK rules. M URGH   talk  22:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Noted, I have updated the page --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you :) M URGH   talk  23:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Gaja (wine)
The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Revision history of Gaja (wine)
Hi Murgh,

can you please help with the right template I have to use?

I used 'Verify credibility' because the statement found in the cited source [6] is a one of those weasel word sentences: "Often described as the man who dragged Piedmont into the modern world...".

I'm just moving at my first steps in editing, thanks for your patience.

Overbridge —Preceding undated comment added 20:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC).


 * Hi Overbridge. It's allright, we all learn as we go. First of all, the sentence directly related to what you're quoting ..is often described as "the man who dragged Piedmont into the modern world" is in the DYK hook, not in the article. In the article you will have noticed it reads, has been called .. and "the man who dragged Piedmont into the modern world". In my opinion the article sentence differs from weasel phrasing, has respectable source attribution, is considerably more neutral and it seems really hard to relate to any motivation to dispute it.


 * The reference that you tagged to dispute my reference (with the edit summary "Cannot find specific sources in the interview [6] in support of this statement") clearly reads "Often described as the man who dragged Piedmont into the modern world, .." so I fail to see where you want to go with this. Yes, in dubious instances it is appropriate to add a tag such as or  but you want to tag the source for weasel words? Do you want to point out in this article that Tim Atkin should have been more specific as to his sources?  I have several WP:RS applying this very sentence, a Decanter article by Atkin, a book by Nicolas Belfrage, I can google now and find it in another article by Jay McInerney, (though none of them reveal where they first heard it) I feel this phrasing is obviously well-established over a very long time, so maybe other sentences on Wikipedia are in greater need of scrutiny.   M URGH   talk  21:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Murgh,
 * thanks for your quick response, I really appreciate.
 * Yes that's my point, since Angelo Gaja has been a true innovator a more precise and strong reference should be used in support of that statement. Atkin's and McInerney's articles are too casual about it to use the quotation marks in my opinion. If I may suggest, E. Steinberg's book about Gaja and D. Cernilli's wine guide by Gambero Rosso offer more arguments. You could remove the quotation marks and add those references. Gaja shares the merit of revolutionising wine making in Italy with other big names like Tenuta dell'Ornelliana and Elio Altare. It would be nice to have one of your articles for the latter ;-)
 * Thanks,
 * Overbridge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.119.210 (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Overbridge, thanks for your thoughts. I feel as established as this phrase is, and three sources that apply it justifies this, it only serves to present a prevalent exaggerated gimmick phrase (imagine all those speeches) that is acceptable in the short lead as a sort of hook, but not right for the body of the article. I made some adjustments to make this more obvious. I view it more like, for instance, Charles Hamilton Houston.. became known as "The Man Who Killed Jim Crow." or Douglas Fairbanks was constantly referred to as "The King of Hollywood".. And thanks for the encouragement. I have an article on Altare in the works. Cheers, M URGH   talk  21:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Scarecrow (wine)
Hello! Your submission of Scarecrow (wine) 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! Mikenorton (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. On it. M URGH   talk  21:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Bruno Giacosa
The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Scarecrow (wine)
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 18:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Kai G. Henriksen
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

About edits at Jeannie Cho Lee's page
Hi, I am writing to find out why my changes get reverted all along. The article that I uploaded has been subjected to review on tone to an extent that it is neutral and without any personal opinion and only facts. I have also made ample references from third party neutral sources to verify that all the awards and recognitions stated on that page is genuine. Can you kindly let me know why I still get reverted all the time? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winestudent725 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Winestudent725. The article "that [you] uploaded" isn't quite along the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. When you just revert back to "your" article lacking in MoS, it has to be restored to a version which is considerably closer to WP standard. If you look at the details you will notice which elements of your version are unacceptable. Unsourced and trivial facts are fine for a personal website, as is an informal first-person tone, but here articles need be neutral POV, referenced with reliable sources and information be written in balanced encyclopedic and restrained tone. Give What Wikipedia is not a read. Also, the images you upload need proper license declaration before we can use them as a WP:COPYVIO infringement is pretty serious. M URGH   talk  09:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Château Raymond-Lafon
Hello! Your submission of Château Raymond-Lafon 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! Yoninah (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Karen MacNeil
Hello! Your submission of Karen MacNeil 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! Yoninah (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)