User talk:Olaf Davis/Archive 1

RFC: Request for move
Thanks, Olaf; i've already had my say (at length that even i, who likes to hear himself talk, find tedious!) and moved on, and i'm just glad at this point not to be asked to do a move i disagree with. --Jerzy•t 16:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the grammar help- Thank you
Thanks for the grammar help- Thankyou. My grammar was never really a strong point for me. I moved the page to Dr Manmohan Singh Scholarship for correct grammar. Regards.--James smith2 (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, You know me too well :-) Oh rivalries, oh rivalries between us Cambridge and Oxford dons when will they stop. I think we are too competitive. By the way thanks for the helping hand.--James smith2 (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Angelo Hastings
Hi

You might want to compare this page to that of Chuck Norris. Looks pretty much like vandalism, don't you think ?

MuppetLabTech (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh... I was just coming here to point that out to Olaf. You beat me to it! Rob Banzai (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

PHH
Since I'm not allowed to remove the Speedy Delete myself, your attention to this topic would be appreciated. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Cannibal Holocaust
Hi Olaf. I saw your comment on the talk page to the anon. He/she also tries to intimidate editors who reverted his/her edits as in here. Dr.K. (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Espanola Valley High School
See if the overlap problem is fixed now. Aleta  Sing 16:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
You have indeed successfully located me. OrangeDog (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Creation of cosmos
Hi NawlinWiki. I just placed a PROD template on this article, and then discovered that you'd deleted it less than ten minutes later. Aren't PRODs supposed to remain in place for five days? If you were in fact deleting it under the speedy criteria, your deletion summary did not give that impression. Olaf Davis | Talk 12:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This was a religious screed in violation of speedy category g11, prohibiting blatant advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me. I suppose your deletion summary was a typo, then?
 * More importantly, I don't think G11 applies to advertising an opinion or position, just a company or service. WP:SPAM says "Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual", but I can't find anything there that would apply to this article. What do you think? Olaf Davis | Talk 12:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you really suggesting that an article that started "For those of you who have always wondered about evolution, the theories laid by these scientists are definitely wrong.", and continued by quoting Genesis, needed to be kept for five days? It could not have been made into a salvagable article -- at least not one that's not already exhaustively covered by Creationism and the like.  NawlinWiki (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, see WP:SNOW: "For example, if an article is deleted for a reason not explicitly listed in the criteria for speedy deletion but it would almost certainly be deleted via the article deletion process anyway, there's little sense in undeleting it." NawlinWiki (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm not proposing undeleting it - for precisely that reason. I just wondered what your reasoning was, since I was surprised to see as article deleted under PROD after five minutes not five days. Olaf Davis | Talk 13:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)I'm not suggesting it was salvageable: that's why I used a PROD, which is for uncontroversial deletions. But however obvious it is that something needs to be deleted, it can't be speedied unless it meets a specific criterion. I didn't think it met any of them, including G11, so I PRODded it instead. If you think my interpretation of G11 is incorrect, could you explain why? I'm always happy to be corrected on misunderstandings of policy. Olaf Davis | Talk 12:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Category g11 states: "Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." I'm interpreting the "entity" here as Christianity.  If you disagree with that interpretation, that's your prerogative.  NawlinWiki (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See my comment at NW's talk page. If he does not restore it, i will. DGG (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * or more exactly, pursue the question of such deletions. the discussion is on my talk page. DGG (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: the rest of the conversation, below, is copied from DGG's talk page, here. Olaf Davis | Talk 11:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you think there was a better speedy delete category to use? And if not, after looking at the text of the deleted article, do you think there was any conceivable argument (1) that the article should be kept on Wikipedia as it was, or (2) that it had any potential to be improved into an acceptable article that wasn't already covered by Creationism, Creation-evolution controversy, Book of Genesis, or similar articles? If so, I'd like to hear the argument. If not, are you arguing that the article should have been kept around for 5 days because "rules are rules"? If so, I disagree, see WP:IAR (a policy I hardly ever cite, but it seems appropriate here). NawlinWiki (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think there was any speedy delete category to use. It had been nominated for prod, and that would have done just fine. Or if someone were stubborn enough to remove the prod, it would be a snow afd. When I became an admin I undertook to follow the rules; you've been an admin longer than I, but that does not exempt you either. Either restore it, or I will. DGG (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You didn't address the second part of my question -- is there any conceivable way that this could be made into a useful, non-duplicative article? If not, it's just silly to repost it purely for the sake of process.  Per WP:SNOW: "For example, if an article is deleted for a reason not explicitly listed in the criteria for speedy deletion but it would almost certainly be deleted via the article deletion process anyway, there's little sense in undeleting it."  Rather than reposting such a doomed article yourself purely for the sake of process, why don't you go to Deletion review?  If there is actually a consensus there to repost the article, I'll be glad to do it then.  NawlinWiki (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * two eds have now asked you. Thats enough reason. SNOW is an essay. WP:Deletion policy is policy. There's a difference. I am not interested in trying to keep the article, but in trying to persuade you that it is a good idea to follow the rules. DGG (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Two editors, neither of whom actually wants to keep the article. And yes, WP:SNOW is not policy -- but WP:IAR is policy:  "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."  I assert that deleting Creation of cosmos, as quickly as possible, improves Wikipedia, and that there is no way in which keeping the page, even for 5 days, could potentially improve Wikipedia.  You haven't argued otherwise.  Also, see the following from What "Ignore all rules" means:


 * "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should perhaps be ignored."
 * "A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged." I believe I have done that by pointing out that Creation of cosmos, as a blatant religious tract, does nothing to improve the encyclopedia.  Nobody, so far, disagrees with that.
 * ""Ignore all rules" does not stop you from pointing out a rule to someone who has broken it, but do consider that their judgment may have been correct, and that they almost certainly thought it was." I don't mind you asking for the explanation, but insisting that I repost the page is elevating the letter of the rule over its spirit, and ignoring the common purpose of building an encyclopedia.
 * ""Ignore all rules" is not an answer if someone asks you why you broke a rule. Most of the rules are derived from a lot of thoughtful experience and exist for pretty good reasons; they should therefore only be broken for good reasons." As explained above, I believe I had a good reason here -- I wasn't just ignoring the rules because I felt like ignoring the rules.   NawlinWiki (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I recognize that you had a reason--you wanted to quickly delete a bad article. I disagree that it was an adequate reason. If IAR is the only way to get an article out of WP, thats one thing; if IAR is the only way to get rid immediately of something actually acutely harmful, that would be a good reason, though I doubt that it would ever be necessary, for I can't imagine what is acutely harmful besides vandalism and BLP violations and other libel and copyvio, and we already have rules for that. I don't necessarily insist you repost the page--but you really should  stop deleting via speedy against the explicit deletion policy and then justifying it by IAR. I think a valid use of Deletion Review and insisting on a repost is to stop people from doing that.  Of course there are other ways. How about, for example, my trying to persuade you that it casts discredit on all the policies when experienced admins ignore them? that is discourages newbies when their material is deleted and nobody can point to a specific policy based written reason why?   that its unnecessary altogether, for I don't think you can give a reason why 4 more days there would hurt the encyclopedia? The unfair treatment of editors--even ignorant ones, even POV ones, on the other hand, that does the encyclopedia.   DGG (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't consider the quick deletion in this case unnecessary. I think that having an article full of stuff like "There is an excellent proof of the creation of the universe. It is called "The Word of God". Let us see what the Bible has to tell about creation." is harmful to Wikipedia, even for one day.  It violates numerous core policies, such as WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:SOAP.  But I will take to heart your caution about deleting articles out of process, and will be very careful in the future.  NawlinWiki (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks, that what I was after. I agree it was harmful, just as any bad article is,and everyone agrees it is better off deleted. I'll gladly support SNOW at AfD for article like this.  DGG (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Looks like I missed the meat of the debate here, but I'll add a couple of closing comments. Nawlin, I accept that you had a reason under WP:IAR. Personally I disagree in this case and would have left it, but I accept that you had a sensible reason. Part of my concern was that when I first saw you delete it with 'PROD' in the edit summary, I thought maybe you'd just rushed it through without really thinking - which I see now is not the case. I'd also echo DGG's comment about scaring off newbies if we appear to ignore policy, though I accept that this particular newbie may not have been the most likely to contribute constructively.

Anyway looks like we're all happy to draw a line under this at this point. Thanks for remaining civil throughout. Best, Olaf Davis | Talk 08:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

WBOSITG's RfA
 Hello Olaf Davis, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for your participation in my RfA which was passed with a final tally of 114/10/4. I'm both shocked and honoured to gain so much support from users whom I admire and trust, and I hope I can avoid breaking that backing by being the best administrator I possibly can. I will take on board the opposition's comments and I hope to improve over the coming months and years. Once again, thank you!  weburiedoursecrets inthegarden  20:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Editing on page Samrat Hem Chandra Vikramaditya or HEMU
Dear Mr. Davis, I thank you very much for your help in re-editing above mentioned page at around 11.00GMT on 15th May 2008. Your timely help motivated me to write/put the remaining citations, and I got going.However, today again some body fiddled with in-between and edited some sentences.I again make a request to sort out the problem with 'Starting of Vikramaditya Dynasty' portion of above page. The edited portion is there,but in the main article some sentences are missing and even on 'save page' only part of write-up appears on screen.

Thanking you in anticipation,

Sudhir Bhargava sudhirkbhargava@gmail.com INDIA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.130.89 (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello again. I've had another look at the page, and I think I've fixed it. There was a broken, and someone had fixed the former but not the latter, which caused more text to disappear.
 * While you're here, can I suggest that you register for a user name? It looks like the computer you're editing from has a dynamic IP, which makes it slightly hard to see which edits are yours and which aren't in the page history of the article. A user name would clear up that problem, as well as bringing other summary of benefits. Just a friendly suggestion though: it's up to you.
 * Anyway, best of luck working on the article. Olaf Davis | Talk 19:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Davis, Thanks again! You rightly pointed out that I have a dynamic IP and it bocomes confusing at times.I am registering right now! Sudhir Bhargava —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.130.134 (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Delayed DYK nom True Scotsman
Hi Olaf, thanks for your patience and support -- the May 11 dyk nom of True Scotsman is cleared for nom here. The decision was "keep" as noted by Sandstein so do I put this hook onto another date (when it was expanded perhaps?) or can I leave that to you or Sandstein to take care of? Thanks again, Julia Rossi (talk) 07:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Julia. I've just added the hook to the next DYK update. Judging from the other DYK participants who came to support it at AfD I doubt anyone will object to it's being a day over. Just to clarify: do you think any of the article's other contributors put in enough work to need crediting for the DYK? Olaf Davis | Talk 08:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, Bridies had 8 article edits plus one talk page, very helpful with refs and Jmack] had 14 and image -- I had a bunch but it was part of getting it together for Jmack who seemed at sea for a bit. Helpful others gave one edit each. Look forward to it and thanks for your positive help in all this -- he'll be overjoyed, [[User:Julia Rossi|Julia Rossi (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I've credited them as the writers and you the nominator. You're very welcome for the help, and congratulations to the three of you on a good article, hook and DYK! All the best, Olaf Davis | Talk 13:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Olaf, for all your trouble -- *beaming*  : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank-spam
 , just a note of appreciation for your recent support of my  request for adminship , which ended successfully with 112 supports, 2 opposes, and 1 neutral. If there's something I've realized during my RFA process this last week, it's that adminship is primarily about trust. I will strive to honour that trust in my future interactions with the community. Many thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Olaf :) Gatoclass (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * More than happy to support; I'm confident you'll continue to be an asset to DYK and the whole of Wikipedia. Congratulations! Olaf Davis | Talk 13:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

dyk
See what I can do if its not done yet Victuallers (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Look's like Bedford just beat you to it, but thanks anyway! Olaf Davis | Talk 16:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Matt Mahurin
Olaf, thank you for noticing my Matt Mahurin biography and the compliments you added to my talk page. I will be adding articles here about contemporary illustrators, as that is a subject I am very familiar with. You are very kind to take notice. I have just arrived here and am still trying to become familiar with best practices. Your encouraging words are very rewarding. Rezimmerman (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK
Thanks, I've changed it based on your suggestion. Can you take a look and see if I did it right? It's my second DYK update and I'm particularly nervous about it (after messing up the first one, but I fixed it quickly so there wasn't too much damage done!). Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk)  09:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me! Olaf Davis | Talk 09:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Though having said that, I also noticed that you must have updated before another edit I made, adding links to the Operation Hyacinth hook. My changes are still on Template:Did you know/Next update. I think I had an up on the next template page so maybe in future it'd be helpful to check for that so you don't upload in the middle of copyediting? No worries though, it's not like anything went really wrong. Olaf Davis | Talk 09:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, sorry about that. I've copied the hook over to the template with the links, and copyedited a bit. I saw the inuse template but when I checked back I swear it had gone, hence the upload, so I should be more observant! Thanks for dealing with the user talk DYK notices! :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk)  09:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, that probably was my fault then. I removed the for a moment to check what the template looked like on the Main Page, and you must have checked back while it was gone. Isn't DYK fun! Olaf Davis | Talk 09:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't actually have to do that, the "inuse" tag does not appear on the mainpage so long as you post it above the hook code (which begins with a "{|" and ends with a "|}". Gatoclass (talk) 09:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It does, however, appear on Main Page alternative (Next DYK) even if you put it right at the top. Or am I doing something wrong? Olaf Davis | Talk 10:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Does it? That's odd, it's never done that with me. I always put the tag just below the "Suggestions" header and above the open brackets "{|" . Where do you put it? Gatoclass (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah - having looked back at the history, I realize I'd put it above the - which would explain it. Thanks for reminding me to check. Olaf Davis | Talk 10:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem :) Gatoclass (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Destroyer Furor article
Olaf: Thanks for your kind offer to nominate my Spanish destroyer Furor article for "Did You Know?" I have taught myself how to add citations, ad have done so. If the article now meets the selectio criteria, I'd be honored if you would nominate it. Thanks again! Mdnavman (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)mdnavman
 * Hi Mdnavman. Unfortunately "Did You Know" only accepts articles created (or significantly expanded) within the last five days - see the selection criteria here - so Furor has missed its chance. But, if you write any other new articles soon you think would make interesting hooks, please do let me know or nominate them yourself. Best, Olaf Davis | Talk 08:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: AAAA
AAAA is a class in the New Mexico Activities Association. There are 5 classes ranging from 1A-5A and it depends how big of a school it is.. Example: Espanola Valley High School has 800+ students so it would be a AAAA school, if a school like Cibola High School which has over 1,500 students it would be classed as a AAAAA school. For more info go to the New Mexico Activities Association wiki page or nmact.org.

... Thomas Salazar   Chat?! 10:34 MT, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply Thomas. I've made AAAA in the Espanola Valley High School article link to the relevant section of the NMAA page, which hopefully should provide people with some context. Olaf Davis | Talk 08:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK thanks and suggestion
Hi. Thanks for the DYK message on Uncommon Sense.

One thing I've noticed with DYKs is that the actual updated dyk hook gets lost and forgotten over time. I've therefore created UpdatedDYKmessage as a way to include that information when adding a user talk page note. If you like it, maybe it can be adopted for the other DYK message templates.

Format is

Which gives (of course, I haven't subst'd it here)

Have a look at my user page for some examples of how it looks in practice. All the best. GDallimore (Talk) 14:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi GDallimore. Thanks for the suggestion, and sorry it's taken me a while to get round to answering it. Your idea about preserving DYK hooks is a nice one. It does however make the template rather bigger, and I do quite like the current slim one. This may just be my fear of the unknown talking, though. It's possible we could slim it down a bit since there's some redundancy in giving the article title twice, but I don't know if that'd be unclear for people who don't know about DYK.


 * Apart from that though your design is good. I'd suggest putting a narrow blank column in the middle to prevent the texts running together as they do a bit on your Four Nights in Knaresborough one. Either that or having one below the other like here, but on the whole I think I prefer yours.


 * You're probably right about this having been discussed before. Perhaps someone on the DYK project will remember it - I will go and bring it up there and see what people think. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've mentioned your template in this thread, so we'll see if any older DYK regulars remember similar discussions or have comments to make. Oh, and I added a column to your template - what do you think? Olaf Davis | Talk 16:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...
for your vote of support on my RFA. I appreciate all the votes of confidence and hope not to disappoint! BTW, congratulations on all those DYK you are creating!! --Slp1 (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, I'm sure you'll be an asset. Also the thank-spam that showed you'd actually glanced at my page was kinda nice! Olaf Davis | Talk 20:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you spam
Hi there - thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed 69/10/3 yesterday. I will put the tools to good use and hopefully justify the confidence you had in me. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Fairouzeh
Dear Olaf, Thank you for your help in editing. Thanks to you I was able to upload my essy about my beloved village "Fairouzeh" in Syria. I realy appriciate your help. --GeorgesNasserDeeb (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Deeb

review
Hi Olaf - I've started working as a DYK reviewer for the last couple of days, and I am concerned that I'm nitpicking and not being well-grounded in policy when commenting. I'm trying to help, and I don't want to end up causing problems. What is your opinion, and how can I improve?  Vishnava talk  20:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Olaf, no hurry whatsoever.  Vishnava talk  16:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello again. Well, this reply has taken significantly longer than I expected, for which I apologise. This is partly because my busy period ended up lasting a couple of weeks rather than days, and partly because my internet connection's been playing up. Anyway, here are my thoughts:


 * First: this isn't quite what you asked, but it's important anyway - everything I've seen you do at DYK has been polite and reasonable, and you're quick to admit the possibility of mistakes and correct them when they're pointed out ( and, for example). I say that's important because disagreeing 20% of the time with someone who's polite and argues sensibly is fine and even helpful to the consensus process, while disagreeing 2% of the time with someone who's rude and unhelpful quickly becomes tiresome.


 * As far as policy goes, for the most part I've been in total agreement with you. Hooks you've objected to or corrected based on length, inline citations, or issues like WP:RS and POV  have all seemed correct decisions to me. The only things I can find that I did disagree with were this  exchange, which turned out to be a misunderstanding on my part where we were actually in agreement, and a couple of times where you've objected to non-English sources. For the latter, it's always been my opinion that since WP:VUE allows them where no English alternative is available, and the DYK rules don't say anything further about them, they should be allowed in hooks as long as the sentence in question is directly quoted and translated. I think this view is shared by most of the regular DYK editors. Asking for English sources as a new member of the project isn't nitpicking in my opinion, but rather a reasonable exercise of caution - the DYK rules are definitely not perfectly expressed, and you can't be expected to learn every precedent instantly! (If you still disagree with using non-English sources for DYK at all then I think consensus is against you, but it's not a big enough deal to worry about. Disagreeing with you on that one point wouldn't detract from the fact that I think you're a good editor.)


 * To answer your final question - "How can I improve?" - boldly comment what you think about hooks and if others say that they or precedent disagree, either accept that or argue it politely and with reference to policy. In other words, exactly what you have been doing! I really think you have nothing to worry about, and I look forward to working with you more on the project now that my time (Insha'Allah) will allow it.


 * Happy editing! Olaf Davis | Talk 10:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow! - a million thanks Olaf - I really appreciate the review, especially as stupid mistakes like these -, - rattle my confidence a bit (its not like I was editing-under-intoxication :) I do take pride in one thing - that I've always tried to inform the nominators of problems with their DYK noms so they can correct it on time - I'm sure they would hate the last-time panicky scurrying for citations and corrections just as much as I do. Again, a million thanks for this great review - I truly appreciate you taking the time to do this. Regards,   Vishnava talk  16:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! Ahh, you meant 120 hours - I had wondered what was going on there! (Saw the first edit when I was looking back through your contributions but missed the second). Don't worry, I've made plenty of similarly daft mistakes myself, and like I said nothing you've done seems seriously bad. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Atheism - help with dispute
Please help resolving a dispute regarding Atheism definition in wikipedia - see Talk:Atheism - thanks! --windyhead (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK hook
Could you take a second look at Ride the Lobster? I've expanded it sufficiently, I believe. (Sorry if I'm just supposed to wait; I'm unfamiliar with the DYK process and wasn't sure what to do) Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 20:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I've confirmed your expansion and approved the hook for DYK. Usually noting the change on the DYK page is enough and an editor will come and re-check it, but if the hook's nearing the end of its five-day limit it might be a good idea to ask someone. Either way, I personally never mind being asked directly to look at something so there's no need to apologise - in fact it's kind of nice to see the improvements that come about on an article as a result of queries at the DYK page.


 * Anyway, congrats on the hook - I'm glad we'll get to use it on the Main Page! Olaf Davis | Talk 10:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ride the Lobster
Thanks for helping to expand this article. Clerks. (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * On further investigation, thanks for verifying that the article was expanded. Clerks. (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was just about to point you to Nousernamesleft as a more fitting target for thanks. But you're welcome for the DYK work anyway - it's a nice topic and good for the Main Page, I think. Olaf Davis | Talk 13:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK nom

 * Thanks for the DYK credit. And you're very welcome for the assistance on the project - it's rapidly become one of my favourite places to work over the last month or so. Olaf Davis | Talk 14:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK Alerts template
Hi Olaf - as per our discussion at WT:DYK, can you please go ahead and create a test model template based on Template:DYKbox (or suggest someone who can; I haven't understood the art of creating new types of templates yet), of three stages:


 * 1) Red - ATTENTION! 5 minutes or past time for next update
 * 2) Yellow - Alert - less than 1 hour to next update; complete addition of entries
 * 3) Green - Normal - inside 6 hours to next update

Of course, the template should be like Vandalism Information in that an editor can manually adjust the level.  Vishnava talk  17:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've also asked RyanLupin.  Vishnava talk  17:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Check it out - I've created 3 test model template (albeit rudimentary; feel free to improve design): DYKUpdateRED, DYKUpdateGreen, DYKUpdateYellow  Vishnava talk  04:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've replied about your concerns.  Vishnava talk  15:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Carangoides
Sorry about that; I thought that was for the actual template, not the DYK blurbs. Mouse is back 15:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem; you'll know for next time. The idea is that WP:ERRORS gets more views and so mistakes on the MP can be corrected quickly. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. Mouse is back 16:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Karl Wahl
In the Post-war section, there is a mentioning of him receiving permisson for his authobiography but not in the authobiography section, where you propably, understandably, looked. The reference for it all is also quoted in the post-war section, its Der Spiegel, unfortunatly only in German. Hope this answers your question, have fun, EA210269 (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ach so! Apologies for not reading the whole thing. My German is just good enough to verify the ref, so I've approved it for DYK. Cheers, Olaf Davis | Talk 22:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries! Thanks for letting me know, EA210269 (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Tommy Thompson
William Saturn is currently blocked, apparently for some ancient sockpupptry in his youth. Another one of these "He stole a loaf of bread and paid for it for the rest of his life" Les Miserables wiki-dramas, imo. I'll try and clean up that article though. -- Kendrick7talk 22:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, and good luck on the article. Shouldn't be too much trouble to fix, I reckon. Olaf Davis | Talk 22:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Stolen Earth
Hi, just dropping a note: I believe that the article is now eligible under the "five-fold expansion" DYK rule. Thanks! Sceptre (talk) 01:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's good to go. Nice work! Olaf Davis | Talk 08:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK
Thanks for notifying me on my talk page. This rarely gets done at DYK and I've often thought that resolvable grievances have been deal breakers more often than they should. And that's definitely something that you should be commended for and consider continuing in the future. That said, I am unlikely to be able to remedy your cogent comments. The encyclical proved to be far less written about than I'd initially determined from my cursory search of google books, and there's really not much for me to add in the way of expanding the article as I'd originally intended. If you intended your objections to preclude the article entirely, rather than just the picture, you have my permission to remove it from the nominations page. Savidan 03:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Savidan. I certainly hope the article can still make it to DYK. I've added an inline cite to the hook paragraph after finding it in the Catholic Encyclopedia reference, and removed (pictured) from the hook - a shame to drop the image, but probably best to avoid potentially misleading information on the Main Page, and people can check the auto de fe article and get the whole story. That clears up all my concerns except the 4.6x expansion, which I hope won't keep it off DYK - but I've left it up to whoever puts together the update.


 * You're welcome for the talk page notification. I started doing it recently after seeing how many noms end up expiring with a [[Image:Symbol possible vote.svg|18px|This article's hook is unsourced or too long or there are other content issues]] on them for perfectly correctable faults because the nominator didn't come back to check every day or two. I'm certainly intending to keep it up. Cheers, Olaf Davis | Talk 09:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We've taken 4.3x expansions before, so if the article looks good, there should be no problem.-- Bedford Pray  16:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Awesome. I'd have been surprised if it didn't get through for missing less than 10%, but thought it best to make no promises. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Herbert Sawyer
Sorry this is a bit late, I've only just got back after a few days away. The article on Herbert Sawyer does indeed say he commanded the ship on the North American Station, the Pegasus, in the Herbert Sawyer section. This coincidentally was whilst the elder Sawyer was the commander. The following section, Herbert Sawyer goes on to say 'He was then appointed to the post of commander in chief of the Halifax Station, his father's old command, which he held during the War of 1812, before relinquishing it in 1813.' The ref is in the ONDB. Does this clarify the matter? If not, feel free to drop me a note. Pip pip, Benea (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah if the confusion was over the use of 'Halifax Station' and 'North American Station', then mea culpa. The RN station at the time went under a number of names, North American Station, North American Squadron, North American and West Indies Station, and, because one of the main bases was the port of Halifax, the Halifax Station. They were used fairly interchangeably, and even current works will refer to them with different names. The problem of compiling an article from a number of sources I suppose.  I've clarified it in the article now, the ODNB entry states 'His eldest son, Sir Herbert Sawyer, who was also later in command of the North American squadron, at the outset of the Anglo-American War of 1812–14, died an admiral in 1833.' Benea (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, that was indeed the cause of the confusion I think - thanks for clarifying. I've approved the article for DYK - it's technically a day late but that shouldn't stop it going up as long as someone notices it there among all those unapproved noms. Cheers, Olaf Davis | Talk 18:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ways and Means DYK
Thanks for the approval!  Lampman  Talk to me! 17:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK credits
Thanks very much! I'd love some help. Could you possibly credit the article talk pages? Thanks again, PeterSymonds (talk)  20:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * On it now! Olaf Davis | Talk 21:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks a lot. :) Just finished the user talk pages so that's all done. Thanks again, PeterSymonds (talk)  21:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Help
Could you maybe help out on these page with displaying references in is own section; tidy it up a bit Kelvin Martinez (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Honorific titles in popular music


 * Hi Kelvin. It looks like you've had quite a few people give you a hand with the article since you asked me. If I have time later I might chip in and do some more reference-formatting too (but I might be fairly busy today). Good luck with the AfD, Olaf Davis | Talk 09:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK update
Hmm, which browser are you using? I've checked on every browser I have (Mozilla, Internet Explorer, Safari and AOL). I asked on the Wikipedia IRC channel and everyone who commented had no problems. Let me know if you still have formatting issues. Thanks for letting me know, PeterSymonds (talk)  21:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops, I checked the history and I screwed up the image formatting. I missed off the |right| on the image template, which caused issues I assume, but they weren't apparent after I checked the Main Page. Not sure why, but it should be resolved now. Sorry about that. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)  21:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC) --PeterSymonds  (talk)  21:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, just glad I spotted it. Cheers, Olaf Davis | Talk 22:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Soldz
I just tweaked the Stephen Soldz article, as per your DYK comments. Please re-review. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for addressing this. But the article (and hook) still sounds to me as though it was Soldz who suggested the ban to the APA, whereas the source just quotes him in support of the ban and doesn't say who in the organization actually came up with the idea. Do you know if it was him? If so the article could probably use an extra reference which says that, and if not we'll need to change the hook to make it clear the APA was already considering a ban when he supported it. Let me know what you think. Best, Olaf Davis | Talk 15:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi again. To avoid confusion, I just put in an alternative hook. Please double-check that one. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The second hook is fine, and I've approved it for the Main Page. Good work! Olaf Davis | Talk 15:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of support! I don't believe I've met you before -- it is a pleasure making your acquaintance!



Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.


 * Likewise! It looks like you're something of a DYK regular, so I'm sure I'll be seeing more of you around. Best, Olaf Davis | Talk 22:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Gunpowder Plot: flying Bacon
I have since provided a reference, and would cite the documentary itself (which explicitly states such), but am concerned with circular referencing. The info is also noted, albeit unreferenced, in Bacon's article as well. What do you suggest? If I could trouble you to respond on my Talk Page, that would be great. :) - Hexhand (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Hexhand. First, since you provided two hooks and only one of them relied on the fact about Bacon, I've approved the other one to go onto the Main Page. Sorry for the delay in getting it through! That takes the immediate pressure off the cite for Bacon's presence, though obviously it'd be nice to have one anyway. It's true that neither of the current cites really confirms it (well, except for the one which just quotes Bacon's Wikipedia article!) so maybe citing the documentary would be better - though I share your concern that it's a bit 'circular'. Do you know the name of the historian who says it in the programme? I think including that would be better than nothing - maybe just as a footnote saying "as stated by John Doe in the documentary" rather than a 'proper' reference. We could also try asking on the talk page of Francis Bacon and see if anyone there knows of a reference. What are your thoughts? Olaf Davis | Talk 10:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I did post a question about that on the Bacon page yesterday, as well as emailed letters of inquiry to http://www.gunpowder-plot.org and http://britonstheclub.net/. Maybe something will come of that.
 * The name of the noting historian, Justin Pollard, is in the article; were you suggesting adding it to the DYK? That might exceed the character number. - Hexhand (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, his name is there - my apologies, I'd skipped over that. Well, I suppose we should just wait and see if any of your three lines of inquiry turns up a source. The other hook has been placed on an upcoming version of the DYK template, by the way. Olaf Davis | Talk 14:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

New prog, and related
I suppose this is splitting up the discussion in a way you'd prefer not to do, but since the AFD's been closed (by someone else), and since it doesn't relate directly to the topic the pseudo-anon started on my talk-page (I've already replied there to the comment that was)... Yes, I think CBM was arguing for deletion (though redirection would have been more sensible, since the term is well-referenced, the only issue is separate notability from prog-at-large (IMO, at least)):  as I noted, my comment was in an edit conflict with him, though that's partly why I didn't immediately act on my own proposed action. As for it being a 'real' account: he's commented that he maintains several accounts, for the purpose of article creation, for AFD-ing, and otherwise edits anonymously. If that's not a deliberate practice of sockpuppetry in order to avoid scrutiny, it's close enough for jazz. Alai (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, splitting the discussion to here is fine. Maybe that green banner makes me sound like a more stringent split-discussion nazi than I intended...


 * Anyway, you're of course right about the edit conflict - I should have taken that into account before effectively accusing you of ignoring him. Sorry about that. I believe the closing admin has now reopened the AfD following CBM's comments. I haven't read the discussion on the article's talk page in detail, so you may well be right that it's headed for a keep anyway.


 * Regarding sockpuppetry, I still think I disagree. The user says they wish to edit annoymously, but that they've created a couple of accounts to do specific tasks which IPs can't do. I admit that makes it easier for them to avoid scrutiny into potentially abusive behaviour, but then so does IP editing in the first place, especially if one has a dynamic IP. It's also a potentially confusing practice which I'd personally prefer they refrained from. But I don't see any firm evidence that they intend to use the accounts to avoid such scrutiny, so I don't think WP:SOCK applies. True, their comment on their user page was sarcastic and maybe not the best response to CBM's (legitimate) concerns about the user name, but I don't feel that's enough to conclude bad faith. Olaf Davis | Talk 19:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think I've concluded bad faith, at least in regard to the AFD nom: rather, I suspect, on the basis of a small but compelling sample of edits, a curmudgeonly contributor with a ton of attitude, and a desire to avoid contiguous scrutiny of their track record of less-than-civil and far-from-collegiate contributions.  (That might not be better as such, just slightly different.)  So yes, it seems to me they're precisely seeking to avoid scrutiny, the question is simply whether what they're trying to avoid scrutiny of is abusive as such...  which we'll never know, since they've avoided scrutiny of it.  But admittedly that's not something we're likely to solve by tweaking AFD procedure this way or that, and certainly not in isolation from any coherent plan for dealing with long-standing IP contributors in general.  Which I'd be in favour of us having, but which seems spectacularly unlikely to come to pass at any point.  Alai (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually I think it was Gwen Gale who explicitly called it bad faith; I thought I inferred it from your comments too but I may well be getting tired and confusing them with hers. I probably need to go do one of these.


 * We can certainly agree on the IP count: I've long been unsatisfied with the current system which allows for people to contribute long-term by IP but provides no method for distinguishing them from drive-by editors. And I'll admit that this anon is using the policy in a somewhat unhelpful manner, albeit short of abuse. But you're also right that change is unlikely to come soon... Anyway, I've probably said all that's worth saying so it's time to sign off for now. All the best, Olaf Davis | Talk 20:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries; I'm probably just picking nits, since I'm certainly less than thrilled by said editor's actions, and have certainly been critical of them.  I think the article's not without its issues, so I don't think the AFD is utterly unreasonable, but for me the issue is clearly cleaning up vs. merging, not one of any foreseeable prospect of deletion, and I'm running out of patience in saying so in several different venues, beforehand and after the fact.  Dealing with an editor who doesn't appear to be listening to other editors, and whose pattern of use of accounts and IPs makes it much harder to talk to them (one might be inclined to infer, perhaps deliberately so), I've found tends to have that effect.  I think 'somewhat unhelpful manner' seems it up rather well:  the quasi-IP wants to frame this as a debate on whether they're on the right or wrong side of the current definition of "sockpuppet", "abuse", etc.  I'd rather act on the basis of whether they're constructive for the project, and indeed, whether said rules and definitions are, themselves.  Maybe I'm getting ever-so-slightly 'rouge' in my old age.  Alai (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Try responding on the article's talk page. If it's about the article, that's where it goes. If it's about me, your comments probably fall on deaf ears. If I wanted a mini-article on myself, I'd have an account. Also, there were a whopping two responders on the page, and one of them was the creator of the page (as such, it was like relying on a single person's opinion, and that person expressed concern that the article was indeed a neologism). Also, CBM merely suggested that I create a permanent account, and I declined, which he was fine with. Rather, the only editor I "wasn't listening to" was you, while you accused me of being a sock puppet and repeatedly made it clear that you thought I should be blocked. Anyway, I am using the policy in a manner that allows me to edit anonymously as I always do. If you have problem with anonymous editing, I'm obviously not going to listen. Long-standing IP editors will always be IP editors: if you were to assign some moniker to them, they would no longer have a reason to remain an IP. 81.51.232.219 (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Goodness, rouge admins? What will they think of next! Olaf Davis | Talk 08:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet collaboration
Greetings! The current Shakespeare Project Collaboration is Romeo and Juliet. This project is currently going a thorough peer review and copyedit before moving on to FAC. The link to the peer review is Peer review/Romeo and Juliet/archive1. Have a look! « Diligent Terrier   Bot    (talk)   20:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello to you too
Hi. Thanks for the message. I did in fact also come across your page a few weeks ago, probably from your editing of the IoA page. It's a pleasure to make the acquaintance of your wikiself.



AstroMark (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.


 * Oh yeah, I'd forgotten I'd edited the IoA page - maybe that was where I found you too. See you around, and thanks for the smile! Olaf Davis | Talk 16:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Offenburger FV
Sounds all good, thanks for fixing the link to the reference! EA210269 (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK rules
That would be really helpful. 131.111.8.97 (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Check It Out!!
Thanks for the support!!! Check it Out Honorific titles in popular music with any feedback Talk:Honorific titles in popular music Kelvin Martinez (talk) 13:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK credits
As always, help would be appreciated. :) Thanks for the offer. If you could slap the banner the article talk pages again, that would be great. Many thanks! PeterSymonds (talk)  22:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can do! Olaf Davis | Talk 22:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And done. Pleasure to be of service. Also, this is the first time in quite a while I've noticed the DYK update become due (and it was due, not late): you, BorgQueen and Gato seem to have things down pat. Olaf Davis | Talk 23:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, as always, it's much appreciated. Just finished - the database is automatically locking itself all-too-frequently! Best, PeterSymonds (talk)  23:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was having problems with that earlier today. See you around. Olaf Davis | Talk 23:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: CSD tagging of Kirk Weddle
I have absolutely no problem with your removal of the Speedy Delete tag from the Weddle entry. I'm a believer in collaborative effort and hope and expect that people with other points of view and expertise won't hesitate to step in and change things I do (well, when done in good faith like this). The whole idea of "notability" isn't exactly written in stone in any case. I tend to leave those arguments to the one's who know best (sometimes it's even me!). You can blame it on me not being a Nirvana fan (I'm more of a Bowie, Sinatra, The Clash, and Freddy Mercury type). Cheers! -- Quartermaster (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Great, I'm glad you feel that way. Sometimes people get a bit offended at their CSD tagging being second-guessed, but I agree absolutely with your sentiments about constructive disagreement. After all, where would Wikipedia be without it? By the way, you seem to have posted your reply twice to my talk instead of once to mine and once to yours, so I'm moving one to yours now as well as cross-posting this - hope that's what you intended. best, Olaf Davis | Talk 11:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK update
;) What a coincidence. PeterSymonds (talk)  11:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yikes - please don't block me for getting in the way of an admin's work! ;) What can I say - great minds think alike! Olaf Davis | Talk 12:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Spring Street Financial District DYK
Thank you for the note, Olaf. I added two inline cites for the Continental Building being the city's first skyscraper. If you have a minute to re-check, that would be great. Cbl62 (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the cite - I've approved the hook for the Main Page. Best, Olaf Davis | Talk 18:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK
Yeah, I was hoping someone might want to rephrase the wording. I am aware that it's very unpolished; I simply wanted to be curt and be able not to do anything regarding ground beetles for some time ;-) For the copyedit/expansion was a real pleasure/pain thing - I found nice content, but had a hard time sifting through it. And you know why I did this? Only to be able to add the "Zootaka" ref annotation behind 2 genera of Trechinae with good concience... Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, I can certainly understand that. I've suggested a rewording over at the DYK page - see what you think. Olaf Davis | Talk 11:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thank-you
Thank-you for your support of me at my recent RFA, which was successful. I have appreciated everyone's comments and encouragement there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

My bad - thanks for fixing it
I mis-read the context of that Apollo 11 message edit. Thanks for fixing it and being polite about it! - Special-T (talk) 02:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, there was no harm done. I admit when I first saw an anon adding stuff about how great god is my first thought was vandalism - turns out not in this case though! Best, Olaf Davis | Talk 12:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK

 * Woo, my first DYK writing credit! Thanks Gato. Olaf Davis | Talk 15:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

About Journal of Atrial Fibrillation
See the articles talk page Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 23:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BRIT redirect
Hi - can you look at this again? It might appear just a minor shortcut, but it represents quite a major issue. The British Isles taskforce was hard won (articles get locked over the use of this term) - and anything that can inflame situations needs to be addressed. Someone is willing to edit war over including WP:BRIT, even though it clearly it isn't needed: That shows you the kind of difficulty that surrounds this issue. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Matt. About to run, but I'll give a full reply later today. Cheers, Olaf Davis | Talk 11:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Beauty and the Geek
I was surprised it was so easy to do what you said you did, but it wasn't done. I don't see any changes. and I clear out all the junk from this computer every day. At least I hope I do. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 18:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's definitely changed for me. Have you tried refreshing your cache? (I'm about to go on a trip, so if you reply I may not see it for a week or so. Good luck!) Olaf Davis | Talk 09:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

JIDF
Hi Davis Please check The Jewish Internet Defense Force And discuss with if any thing was wrong with my edits--Puttyschool (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Well done, now look a nice one--Puttyschool (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and well done for your work too. Isn't it satisfying saving an article from such a mess as this one was before the AfD? Olaf Davis | Talk 23:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure the old one was not only a mess but if left will promote more violence Thanks--Puttyschool (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it was hardly the kind of thing Wikipedia wanted to be associated with. Olaf Davis | Talk 23:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Davis I hope you are enjoying the festival Please share your point of view If you have internet access--Puttyschool (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Davis, you mentioned in an AfD discussion that perhaps the academic article I have "in print" (i.e. accepted but not actually published yet) could be added by a third party rather than myself? I don't see the need, as long as everything is delcared (infact if I was not editing under my real name no one would know the difference, so it would be unfair to penalise users for being honest about who they are)... in any case, as I can still change the article I would be happy to send you a draft when you get back. Just drop me an e-mail via my user page, more feedback is always welcome. Oboler (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Oboler. The reason I said that was that I interpreted your comment in the AfD ("It does mean there will be another source though if anyone want sto look out for it and add it") as implying that you weren't intending to add the source yourself. Therefore I thought bringing it to the attention of another editor would be useful - and quicker than letting them 'look out for it'. If I was wrong about your intentions then I apologise. Olaf Davis | Talk 10:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Just a thankyou note for your expression of concern the other day. The truth is I have been overdoing it a bit lately, and after reading your note I decided to take your suggested advice and step back a bit from DYK for a while. I really do need to replenish the batteries, and besides, there are some articles of my own I'd like to write!

Sometimes it can be hard to give ourselves permission to take a break even when we know we should, so I very much appreciate your timely suggestion :) Gatoclass (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to have made a difference! hope the break does you some good. Olaf Davis | Talk 09:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Olaf Davis | Talk 22:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Rainer Kurt Sachs
Yes, it was really a bit naughty of me, and you were of course right to remove it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

BNP Councillors
Hi Olaf, I have sandboxed on my talk page a paragraph on the performance of BNP councillors. I had hoped to make this as fair as possible and I have tried to explain the reasons for their difficulties, but it is a pretty dismal record. This is probably because any councillor who becomes too influential appears as threat to the leadership and gets slapped down.Hence candidates of restricted abilities are often preferred, and who have even less self-discipline. These are structural problems for any fascist and racist organisation.

Obviously I have gone to some lengths to provide sources, since I have begun to suspect that not everybody interested in this article wants to be my friend, but I am having difficulties in providing the footnote citations. I have succeeded in doing so, but when I do the text beneath the citation disappears, but when I pull up the editing page the text is still there. Can you help? --Streona (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Streona. It looks like the problem (or a problem) is that you were writing, causing the software to think your closing tag was meant to be opening a second reference. I've fixed the examples I found and they seem to be working - do you agree? If not let me know and I'll see if there's something else I've missed. (My internet access will be intermittent for the next couple of weeks, but I'll certainly be replying to messages within a day or so.) Cheers, and good luck with your improvements to the article. Olaf Davis | Talk 08:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. - WP:FOOT has information on the relevant syntax. Olaf Davis | Talk 09:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks- I have placed it on the article British National Party under "Councillors' Achievements"--Streona (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! Olaf Davis | Talk 16:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks Olaf, you're a good guy, unlike some of the creeps on DYK. I might stick around afterall.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear it. I know the DYK process can seem a little arbitrary sometimes but I'd have hated to see you driven away by one bad incident. I look forward to seeing your submissions in future! Best, Olaf Davis | Talk 16:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Their process is really not that bad, I was having a rough week. In the whole year I've contributed there it was only the second nomination that was rejected (actually someone's urging from the first rejection prompted me to get another article up to GA Status).  I was mistakenly under the impression that it was total size and was kinda steamed that they waited till the last day to say something.  It also showed me the true colors of some twerp over there that I used to think was a decent human being.  Thanks again, my friend!  Cheers!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The Owl Service
Thanks for your response to the DYK fact on The Owl Service. I've answered your question there. Well spotted!--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, glad to be of help. Nice article, and the revised DYK fact was still great main page material. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you sir!--Tuzapicabit (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Flatness problem
Kudos on bulking up that article. I remember being fascinated by the problem just a couple years ago and it's wonderful to see a good-looking article on it now. Great work.  Plasticup  T / C  05:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Plasticup. There's still a lot more that could be said in the article (as demonstrated by my perhaps rather premature GAN) but it will have to wait until I get access to a decent library again. Nice to know my improvements so far have been useful, though. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Beauty and the Geek
I have no idea how to fix the problem, but the August 14 help desk page has your promise to fix what I asked about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2008_August_14#Citing_references

Thanks. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 19:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Vchimpanzee. Looking back at the discussion it seems as though I misunderstood you: I thought you were talking about what was in the 'References' section, which I renamed 'External Links'. I now realise you were talking about the links in what was then the 'Footnotes' section, but which I renamed 'References'. You're right that it's a Bad Thing to have all those facts just sourced to MySpace pages. The only way to fix it, though, is to find some reliable sources that contain the information and add them - or if they can't be found, to remove the information. I'm afraid I wouldn't know where to look for such sources, so I can't really be of that much help. Perhaps someone at WikiProject Television would know where to find one? Olaf Davis | Talk 16:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't know how to got looking for that information. For one thing, the CW message boards, which were a good source of information just for fun, but not for an encyclopedia, are gone.

If no one cares, we'll just leave it as is. I personally would like to look at the MySpace pages of the cast members. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 17:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Olaf
Thank you for supporting my RfA nomination, Olaf. I look forward to being able to help out further at DYK. And I appreciate the confidence. Cbl62 (talk) 06:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! It's nice to see the community agree with my opinion of you. See you around DYK. Olaf Davis | Talk 12:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK
Hi. Thanks for your note on DYK, i have now readjusted the refs at the SWSI article so that the hook is directly referenced. --Soman (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've approved the hook for DYK. Best wishes, Olaf Davis | Talk 10:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Cress Williams DYK
Hiya, I've fixed it on T:TDYK. Gary King ( talk ) 15:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Nikolay Alekseyev

 * I didn't write this article - it looks like a mistake was made copying it onto the next update template. I've credited the actual author. Olaf Davis | Talk 23:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

UK GAN
163.1.174.65 (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Teatro del Silenzio DYK
I have corrected the hook on T:TDYK. Thanks for taking the time to look at it. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  07:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, I've approved it for DYK. Thanks. Olaf Davis | Talk 08:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Clockwork Orange
Both film and book need copyediting. 163.1.174.65 (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

David Lloyd George
Lede 163.1.174.65 (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK template
Hey, I just responded to your comment at WT:DYK. The short answer is, I only just found out that you had that template, and I just made my own a couple days ago since I didn't realize yours was already out there, but we can definitely look into merging them somehow. &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 22:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Shakespeare notice
There is currently a discussion going on regarding the project's policy on how information on characters should be represented in articles on Shakespeare's plays. Please take part by clicking Talk:Romeo and Juliet. Further context, if needed, can be found by scanning the two previous talk sections on the page as well. Sent by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 04:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC) per request of Wrad (talk)

Women's suffrage in the United Kingdom
Clean-up; lede; JSM=MP 163.1.174.65 (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC) The World (archipelago) 163.1.174.65 (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

More things to work on
strong lensing and weak lensing 163.1.174.65 (talk) 10:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)