User talk:Mycroft7

INSTRUCTIONS FOR USER TALK: For a new discussion, please use the "new section" button at the top of the page. I will reply on this page instead of yours, to avoid fragmenting discussions.

Public Libraries (journal)
Thanks for your quick clean-up and categorization of Public Libraries (journal) JohnRussell (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
I'll take that to heart. I was just taking a quick look and tagging them for someone else to fix. Newport Backbay (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

On Mahmoud Dowlatabadi
Dear Mycroft, could you please clarify the reason for removing so much of the text, as evidenced by this: (please compare with this: ). Your undertaking does not look like merging to me. I should be grateful if you did the merging with some more attention to detail. For completeness, the longer version of the article at issue is due to User:Nadim2008, and at the time I placed this message for this editor:. So, perhaps you wish to consult User:Nadim2008 concerning the details of this longer version. Thank you. --BF 14:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. You are correct in that I did include the full text of the source article in the merge. This was intentional, as much of that article was written in what seemed to me an essay-like tone and was generally fairly unencyclopedic. For example, look at this sentence: "Using a mellifluous language, he creates a prose which is both delightful and down-to-earth. The rich tapestry of his style comes largely from the capacious memory he has at his disposal." This may or may not be true, but it is utterly subjective, and doesn't actually convey any information besides the author's opinion (see WP:NOT). If, on the other hand, one wanted to assert that his writing "is well known" for certain qualities, that would be an appropriate inclusion (assuming it was appropriately cited, or at least was a statement that could be cited). Again, I am not saying that is not the case. In fact, I am completely unfamiliar with Dowlatabadi, and I will defer to those more knowledgeable. Mycroft7 (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Mycroft, thank you for your prompt response. I believe that I know the person who has written the text that you have axed. I know this by the fact that one week before this person started editing on Wikipedia, I was in touch with a professor of literature at one of the better American universities (she is an author of several highly-acclaimed books, and has a Wikipedia biography; I shall not name her name, since that would be in violation of her privacy). The reason I am almost certain that this person is the same one as I was talking to, is the fact that the names we discussed at the time almost exactly coincide with those she has been working on since joining Wikipedia (when we were talking, she told me that she would join Wikipedia and start working on a number of specific biographies). This is the main reason why I did not do the merging myself, as that would be tantamount to putting this person's text on my own name. Given these facts, I should be most grateful if you would kindly make a complete merging of the longer text. Naturally, you can always attach the "reference needed"-tag to the statements that in your opinion are not properly referenced. With thanks in advance for the trouble, --BF 15:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC).


 * It's not just a matter of being unreferenced. If that were the case, I would be happy to do as you say. It's the tone and scope of the unused text which is the problem. I should also reiterate that whether I disagree with the article is irrelevant. I have no opinion on the subject, and I'm sure your professor acquaintance is perfectly knowledgeable. In fact, if she's written books about Dowlatabadi, those might be excellent sources to cite for this article. However, an original essay from even the most qualified author is still an original essay, and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I refer you again to What Wikipedia is not.


 * That said, I have reproduced the entirety of the text from the source article in the target article's talk page, to make it easier for future editors to see what was removed, and possibly salvage more if they deem it appropriate.


 * On a related note, you should not worry about "putting her text in your own name." First of all, it's not her text, and second, it wouldn't be in your name. Wikipedia articles are not written by or attributed to single authors, and no contributor "owns" any article. Mycroft7 (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Mycroft, while I appreciate your intentions, please accept from me that you are not being cooperative. What you have done is in essence curtailing someone else's work by applying a set of rigid rules pertaining to editing Wikipedia entries. By doing so, you have just annulled my considerable effort in getting a real academic expert editing for Wikipedia - this person chairs over 10 committees in her university and I had to beg her for a long time before getting her accepting to edit for Wikipedia! It would have been far better if you had just done nothing, leaving the merging to an editor who is qualified for the task. May I ask whether you knew Dowlatabadi at all? Whether you have ever read anything by him? If the answers to these questions are in the negative, then the logical thing would be to leave the merging to a qualified person. I have thousand and one reasons for not having interfered with this person's edits myself (she is invited by me, and I do not wish to appear as being her mentor or supervisor here); judging by your explanation, it appears that you must somehow believe that I must be unfamiliar with the principles governing the editing of Wikipedia articles - if so, then I suffice by saying that you are mistaken. I should add that the reason this person has not referred to her own books/published papers is my earlier warning to her that in editing Wikipedia entries one should be mindful that others do not view one's edits as an act of self-promotion; that one should preferably not refer to one's own books and papers. I request you therefore once more to restore this person's edit to its original form. Please do not force me into writing an epistle to you before you decide to comply with my earlier request from you. I repeat what I wrote earlier: please tag statements that in your opinion need to be referenced by a "reference needed" tag. I trust that you will not let this issue be turned into an unnecessary dispute between you and I; we have no disagreements on fundamental issues. With kind regards, --BF 01:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC).


 * BehnamFarid, if you are still watching this talk page, then I apologize for taking so long to respond. Anyway, the last thing I want is to cause either you or the original contributor any offense. If I came across as condescending towards either of you, that was not my intention; I was merely trying to explain my actions in accordance with the guidelines of Wikipedia as I interpret them. I have already said I have no familiarity with the subject, which is why I have neither added to nor disputed the factual portions of the article. That said, my mind is unchanged about the tone of much of the merged article, but in the spirit of compromise I have tried to be more flexible, and incorporated some additional information, as much as I could conceivably justify to myself. I also added an "unreferenced" tag to the article, it being simpler than challenging individual assertions. If you still strongly disagree with my actions, you are certainly free to correct them yourself as you see fit. You may have your own personal reasons for not doing so, but I can hardly be expected to take those into account in my own actions, and I, for one, will not stop you or argue with you further about this article. To the contrary, I would strongly recommend you expand this article yourself. If there are no better sources besides your friend's books to cite, and if they truly are well-respected in academia, then I think they can justified as not mere self-promotion, and I will support you if anyone accuses them of such. Mycroft7 (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Velvet Angels (album)
A tag has been placed on Velvet Angels (album) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. The  Helpful   One  (Review) 18:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

New image of Mycroft Holmes
Hello Mycroft7 !

I have just uploaded a new (and better) version of the picture with Mycroft Holmes that you use on your user page. Don't hesitate to use the new picture, the old one should be deleted in the coming days.



New Rational Skepticism WikiProject member asking for look at Theosophy entry
Since you are an active participant in the Rational Skepticism WikiProject, would you mind looking over the Wikipedia entry on Theosophy to see if you find any concerns?

I've been ordered to fix the page so that it accords with my understanding of the NPOV policy. I'm happy to do that but I have a lot of work at my job. Now I've been told that I must make the changes by April 30th or the NPOV tag will be removed. I simply can't learn how to use Wikipedia as a newcomer, become familiar with all the sources, and make the edits if I must do it all by April 30th.

Would you look over the Theosophy page? Also, can you recommend anything? Thanks much,Factseducado (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers
Hi ,

In order to better control the quality  of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Northport location.gif


The file File:Northport location.gif has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)