User talk:PatGallacher/Archive 2

boxer merge (animal farm) and benjamin.
same was happening with benjamin. I can rv as well as you can, but might be better if you do rather than have too many fingers in the pie. SimonTrew (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * forgive me, you already have! SimonTrew (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Redirecting
First thing, Don't template the regulars. It is rude and very easily replaced by a simple message. Next, dead articles will not receive discussion, so it is impossible to do anything unless I put every one of them up for deletion. I really don't want to do that, so I'm following WP:BRD. The two Animal Farm articles would have been brought back by that other user, so I will AfD them. The other articles would probably never have been challenged, so there would be no problem, and thus, no reason for discussion. Forcing discussion where discussion is unlikely to actually occur is just plain annoying. And please do respond here. I really hate when people don't follow my message. TTN (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

And how exactly are you a judge of consensus in an area you don't seem to be familiar with? Two responses after about two weeks is the most that really is going to achieve, and the new user with one edit and the anon are likely the same person, so they can be ignored. TTN (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

talkback
Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen
Pat, an article I recently created, Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, has been nominated for deletion here: Articles for deletion/Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. Given your attention to other Hohenzollern-related articles, please take the time to weigh in and stop its deletion. Thanks again for all your wonderful contributions to Wikipedia! --Caponer (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Shahla Atta


The article Shahla Atta has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * fails WP:POLITICIAN

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TParis00ap (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Frozan Fana
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Frozan Fana. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Frozan Fana requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, 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 indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (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. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Frozan Fana, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Frozan Fana. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Kartika San Dewi Shukarno
A tag has been placed on Kartika San Dewi Shukarno requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, 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 indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (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. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Kartika San Dewi Shukarno, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Kajang (disambiguation)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Kajang (disambiguation), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Cnilep (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Gail Sheridan disambiguation page
Sorry about the piping on the Gail Sheridan disamb. page. I didn't know it was a no-no. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Bassem Ibrahim Abu Rahmah
You can't just copy text that someone else has written without citing it.Prezbo (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of May Wynn
I have nominated May Wynn, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/May Wynn. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to Walter Breuning article
Since when does someone go from 14th-oldest to first place with just one death?

19:51, 11 September 2009 PatGallacher (talk | contribs) (5,822 bytes) (now oldest person in the world) (undo)

Your edit was very incorrect, Mr Breuning is still not even in the top 10 yet. Ryoung 122 19:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my mistake. PatGallacher (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Kotovsky
I can do it right away, if you wish; it's not a problem. All in all, however, there are many more pages like this one, and the backlinks the entries on these pages generate are invaluable to organizing the workflow effectively. The pages get taken care of over time, by the way, so it's not like there is an intent to keep them that way forever :) Problem is, while it is possible to improve any given page upon request, they cannot all be improved during a short period of time, so inevitably situations like the one with Kotovsky dab pop up every now and then.  Hope you understand.  Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:35, September 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * I have taken care of the Kotovskoye link, which did not meet WP:DABRL. The other red link is OK per that same guideline.  Hopefully this resolution is to your satisfaction.  Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:45, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Kotovsky (disambiguation)
Hello PatGallacher, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Kotovsky (disambiguation) has been removed. It was removed by Ezhiki with the following edit summary ' (deprodded--such pages are vital to support workflow organization within WP:RUSSIA. If AfD'd all links will be turned blue immediately.) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with Ezhiki before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

DEFAULTSORT
I don't agree that it's pointless. First, a correct DEFAULTSORT removes the need for a comment. This is a simple and general way to handle it. Second, technically a sort on "Hou Yifan" and "Hou, Yifan" are not the same. To fit the normal "last, first" pattern, the second is more correct. If we had a Hou A and and Hou Z sorted "Hou, A" and "Hou, Z", this makes a difference and your comment would not make the page sort correctly. Probably unlikely in this case, but it is correct. Quale (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Tom McEllistrim
Hi, I've just seen your query on Tom McEllistrim talk. Yes, same guy. I'm in the middle of expanding it right now.Jdorney (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

St. Peter
How EXACTLY is changing the word "apologist" "unconstructive"? Do explain? How is that NEUTRAL? Do explain...Curious..--24.16.211.213 (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * See my reply on the user's talk page. PatGallacher (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Grahame Smith
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Grahame Smith. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

As a longterm editor you should know better.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If Polanski wants to sue me I'll see him in court. PatGallacher (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You know (or should know) that your personal opinions/feelings don't belong in any article, including Polanski's. Have a nice day, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Juan Carlos 1
Hi. Yes I am aware what the article says, which is my point. He does NOT use the title "King of Gibraltar". It is an urban myth. Some insist that the title is in use, but the simple fact is it is NOT. You can search the spanish royal family's ownebsite. The info is simply not true, but some for unknown reasons insist on adding it. WP should reflect reality.

Pat, you should be aware that the above message was posted by a long-term banned user, sockpuppeteer and persistent vandal, User:Gibraltarian. He is not allowed to contribute; please do not bother replying to him. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, Pat, please check what people are doing to your talk page before reverting. If you "want to see what people are writing to me" why did you revert the banned vandal Gibraltarian's deletions of my comments above? He didn't write anything to you; he deleted what I was writing to you. He has done literally nothing on Wikipedia other than vandalism and posting rants for the last four years. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the above comments are very telling. The only one ranting here is ChrisO. I have vandalised nothing. Merely disagreeing with ChrisO cannot be classed as vandalism. The info ChrisO insists on adding to the JC pase is untrue and supported by no official sources. Therefore it does NOT meet the criteria for inclusion on WP. As for ChrisO there are numerous instances of him directing abuse and insults at me. Perhaps he should ban himself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.243.128 (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

AIV report
Hi there! The IP you mentioned in this report does not exist. Mind pointing me to the right one? Cheers, Master of Puppets  - Call me MoP! :D  16:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out with the AIV report. I'm afraid it's quite difficult to block Gibraltarian - he moves around from IP to IP, but can always be distinguished by his use of a 212.*.*.* IP address. I'd suggest just reverting him on sight until he gives up for the day. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Kings of Imereti stubs
Hi PatGallacher, whilst doing my rounds stub sorting, I've noticed that you created quite a few stubs on historical rulers of Imereti, such as George I of Imereti and Demetre of Guria. If you have any more of these up your sleeve, can I recommend that rather than tagging with the generic bio-stub, you use the more specific euro-royal-stub? Thanks, and kind regards, Doktor  Mandrake  00:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Kartika case (Caning in Malaysia)
I understand about giving preference to the Malaysian media references, but the problem is in my experience the KL Star, New Straits Times, etc. don't leave stuff up long, whereas the New York Times and the London D. Telegraph are currently maintaining their archives permanently. So the refs you've left in the article might disappear soon. It might be better to put the Western refs. back (but maybe comment them out) so they can easily be reinstated. -- Alarics (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
warrior 4321  20:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

warrior 4321  01:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Darius I of Persia‎
Could you, please, add you reference to Stephen Bourke to my edits of Darius I of Persia‎? Xashaiar went into edit-warring there and accepts no other version but adding the word hypothetical in the references! StJohnTheBaptist (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Why?
There was still discussion on the move, why did just go ahead and move it yourself? warrior 4321  02:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Chris New
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Chris New. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry & Thanks
Just apologising for editing the spelling on the Lord of the Rings article without doing my research first... sorry : ). Thanks for taking the time to message on my userpage too, I think I understand and respect the spelling varieties a little more now. As I said on the LOTR discussion page, next time I'll run my thoughts by the people on the talkpage before I get too edit-happy. Thanks again, Gilly of III (talk) 03:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sub-section in Wind that shakes the barley
Unless you intend adding to this section to reflect the assertion of 'historical inaccuracy', I don't understand your revert. RashersTierney (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The lost sockpuppet report
Hello PatGallacher! Back in August you filed a sock pupped report, but somehow it wound up in the article space redirect. I've reverted that edit and just wanted to drop you a courtesy note in case you wanted to refile it. -- ToET 03:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

William III of England Revert
Hi Mr. Gallacher! I noticed that you reverted an edit today at William III of England. Subsequently, you notifed the miscreant anonymous editor of his wrongdoing. In that warning you chose to use Uw-defamatory1 which highlights possible libel issues. However, my understanding is that Uw-defamatory1 is more appropriately used when there are possible biography of living persons issues. Since William III has been dead for over 300 hundred years, and libel could therefore not accrue to the statement made by the little vandal, I would have thought that a Uw-vandalism1 warning would have been more appropriate. Thanks! —  Spike Toronto  23:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: You may already know about them, but you might find Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. warrior 4321  01:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

William Gladstone
Hiya, I'm a bit puzzled by your comment on my William Gladstone edit. (Firstly, apologies, I forgot to sign in, so it was done on a work computer with a communal IP address rather than using my own account!) You pasted a standard wikipedia form of words querying whether my post was neutral. Just to reassure you, I made three changes - two of them related to adding the subtitle of two of Richard Shannon's Gladstone biographies in the further reading section - these books are actually better-known by their subtitles than as Volume I and Volume II. I also added Eugenio Biagini's biography, because although short, it's a well-known introductory biography by a well-respected Cambridge and Yale based Gladstone scholar. I'm not quite sure how that constitutes non-NPOV! Best wishes, Debonairchap (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary?
Excuse me, what edit summary? I never edited Talk:James I of Scotland. Surtsicna (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that I have read everything you wrote, I am even more confused. I have never used the word "bitch" here; the anonymous IP who started the discussion used that word. I haven't used edit summary either, so it can't be inappropriate. Perhaps you confused me with someone else? Surtsicna (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Biggles
This is of course NOT the most important article either of us have on our lists (!) - none the less I do appreciate your help in editing it! It is good to have another slant on some of my wilder edits. Nice to work with you, anyway. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

He was KING OF ALL BITCHES Scotland and England not just England
Quite right! If you hadn't done, I would have. It's been annoying me whenever I looked at my watchlist. Brendandh (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Frederick of the Palatinate
Hi! A year ago, you proposed Frederick of the Palatinate for deletion, but it wasn't deleted. I started a deletion discussion right now. Geschichte (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not do this
You said: " Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:168.9.36.2, you will be blocked from editing. PatGallacher (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)"

I have never edited "User talk:168.9.36.2" in any way, see the edit history for that page. 213.162.113.89 (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

James VI
Sorry if I acted precipitously. It was not my intention. I did look for guidance on this action, and could only find information effectively saying "just do it". I did give what I believe is a reasonable explanation for my action - that the monarch had more than one title, and that a search for James VI of Scotland should not really return James I of England, even if they are one and the same person. It would be more delicate to respect the fact that he was the monarch of two separate kingdoms with two separate titles, and for the article title to reflect that fact. Please note that I made no other change than to the title, and that searches for James I of England or for James VI of Scotland would both return James VI and I, which was his actual title. Anyway, sorry again for not having played by the rules, but I maintain serious consideration should be given the change I proposed, since it is not introducing any error, is more culturally sensitive and actually conforms to the spirit of the law as decided in the case of MacCormick v Lord Advocate 1953. Lusobrandane (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Users can remove most messages (including warnings) from their own talk pages, according to the user page guidelines. snigbrook (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Narreeman


The article Narreeman has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.


 * Hi, I see that you have removed the proposed deletion template stating that this is a "significant fictional character". Please can you explain on the article's talk page why you think this is, and then add real world (i.e. not from the Flashman books) sources to the article that corroborate this opinion. If not, then I will take this to WP:Afd. You have been contributing to Wikipedia for a long time, so I am sure you know why it is necessary to back claims to notability up with sources if an article is to exist. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Mary Marquis
Hi! I've expanded the article you started on Mary Marquis, if you would like to take a look. It could probably use some copyediting, and of course any further material. Jheald (talk) 10:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Chris New


The article Chris New has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable. No references can be found for article subject.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. warrior 4321  02:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Chris New
I have nominated Chris New, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Chris New. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. warrior 4321  02:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Message
How was it against naming conventions? And as far as I can tell, there is no consensus, and we speak English not Japanese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinnyfm (talk • contribs) 01:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard it used and I have been speaking English for all my life. On the discussion page for the article there are at least two topics calling it into question, hardly a consensus-Dinnyfm (talk] • contribs) 01:28, 9 December 2009

Darius I of Persia
What is the neutral point of view dispute? How is it biased? You should have provided/started a discussion section on the talk page, so others can understand what the problem is. warrior 4321  23:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
warrior 4321  02:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

re: Bruce Lee
Welcome to Wikipedia. You have mischaracterized my edit by apparently not taking the time to examine the diff in which I fixed a bad reference tag delimiter. If you wish to apologize, you may do so on my talk page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. &mdash; Myasuda (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am still waiting for you to either revert your reckless and mistaken addition to my talk page, or for you to extend an apology for your careless error. &mdash; Myasuda (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Kind Hearts and Coronets
If the claim is sourced, you need to provide a reference. Never mind. I've done it for you. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Community restrictions
O Fenian (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

On my head
Well I don't really want it on my head, but your edit is bold, lets see if it holds..It is a simple citable fact as you have added it..so lets see. Off2riorob (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Adams
Pat, your pov template you added to the article is a bit excessive and not really helping, the whole article is not pov is it, it is just a dispute about this one situation and the situation is being discussed on the talk so it would be better to remove the template yourself imo. Off2riorob (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Darius I of Persia
You added some content to the article, could you please provide a source? warrior 4321  18:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
warrior 4321  03:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Good article review
Did you take a look at the How to review an article section at the nomination's page? You should have seen it before reviewing an article, because you have not really reviewed it. You have just given a comment. You never even gave one reference to the Good article criteria. It states :

When choosing an article to review, keep in mind:
 * that only registered users may review articles — make sure you are logged in.
 * you cannot review an article if you have made significant contributions to it prior to the review, nor can you review an article if you are the nominator.
 * you should not pass an article that was put on hold by another editor without assessing the problem
 * nominations towards the tops of the lists are older, and should be given higher priority

Just informing you about this, you do not need to revert or do anything else at the moment. I am going to ask around for help to remove your "review". warrior 4321  23:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

William Kidd: Piracy on the Wikis
Hi PatGallacher. Thanks for your response to my comments on vandalism in the William Kidd article. I thought I'd put my thoughts out there, but they don't have to be right. And it's always good to know that a problem is not as bad as one thought it was. In those situations, it's a pleasure to be wrong. Wotnow (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Wotnow

Wrong
Do not post any more incorrect messages on my talk page, or better still do not post any messages of any description on my talk page. O Fenian (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not? PatGallacher (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no wish to engage in discussion with people who cannot or will not read. That is my final comment on the aubject, or any other subject you wish to broach. O Fenian (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Heya, popping in as an admin. I took a look at O Fenian's edits, and though it's true that he did revert twice, one of them was of an anonymous IP, and those tend not to count as far as the 1RR rule goes. If you see any other violations though, please let me or some other admin know.  Thanks, --Elonka 16:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello PatGallacher! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 11 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:


 * 1) Keith Faulkner -
 * 2) Billy Boyle -
 * 3) Bob Bird -
 * 4) Néstor Pitrola -
 * 5) Qais Abd al-Karim -
 * 6) Jamil Majdalawi -
 * 7) Hadem Rida -
 * 8) Jorge Altamira -
 * 9) Tommy Allsup -
 * 10) Pat Kane -

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Paul Greenwood
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Paul Greenwood. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Norman Macdougall


The article Norman Macdougall has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unsourced BLP since 2006. Not sure if senior lecturer alone is enough to satisfy PROFESSOR.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Paul Greenwood


The article Paul Greenwood has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unsourced BLP. In addition, does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER, as he has not "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions."

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. NW ( Talk ) 20:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Hein Riess
I have nominated Hein Riess, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Hein Riess. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Cheers, CP 23:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

List of cities by time of continuous habitation
Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you.
 * I will once again make a friendly suggestion that you either refrain from getting involved in issues from this complex conflict, or do your research and get the knowledge needed to be involved. While I do assume good faith, your edit summary shows severe lack of understanding in this subject. "It is POV to say that Jericho, Gaza City, Hebron are not in a country" - on the contrary. The old version of the page that said "West Bank, Palestine" suggested that they are in a country so-called "Palestine". No such country (sovereign state) exists. "Palestine" was declared as a state by the Palestinian leadership; however, as the peace process has failed time and time again, at this point "Palestine" does not exist as a sovereign state that controls any land. This is not POV; it is a statement of facts on the ground. Breein1007 (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a moot point whether country and sovereign state are synonymous, we have articles on Hamilton, Bermuda and San Juan, Puerto Rico. Palestine has rival de facto governments in Gaza and Ramallah both of which do control some land. It is a moot point whether a sovereign state has to be recognised as such by the international community, the USSR and People's Republic of China both existed for some time before they became widely recognised. PatGallacher (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, they do not control any land. Your understanding of the issue seems to be at a level not suitable for making such sweeping statements. There is huge legal background to the term "control". Similarly, there is huge legal background to the term "country" - and it is certainly not a moot point. I fail to see the parallels to Bermuda or Puerto Rico. Those articles do not suggest that they are countries. I won't keep arguing this with you. I encourage you to do a lot more research if you want to make positive contributions to this area on Wikipedia. It's very easy to make big errors when using seemingly neutral terminology in this area. Breein1007 (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

IP User

You've got the wrong cat with regard to your accusations of page vandalism (Michigan). Looks like the IP address changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.81.5 (talk) 09:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Scottish TUSC candidates
Hi PatGallacher, is there a more concrete source yet for the Scottish TUSC candidates than the flyer? Also, do you know anything more about the candidate in Carlisle and why he's endorsed but not a TUSC member? --Killing Vector (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Jock Palfreeman article concerns
Hi PatGallacher, looking over the Jock Palfreeman article that you created, I noted several concerns:

1) The article is about an living person but that category was not added. (I fixed this article, but please use more care in the future.) 2) The article did not have the content referenced to any reliable sources. 3) The article contained material that was not found in the linked external link, not a reliable source but at least could have provided some context for the material. (I removed the material because I felt it was contentious to the point that a source was need to be included.)

It is important that all article content be linked to sources so the reader can verify the text is accurate. And as indicated by the biography of living people policy, it is extremely important for material related to living people to be sourced adequately.

An internet search shows available news articles to source and expand the article. Since you have an interest in the material, I would appreciate it if you would turn your attention to expanding and sourcing the article at your earliest convenience. Best regards, FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Donald Stewart
As you have disputed my bold move it is only fair that the articles are restored to their original state. I will probably start my own WP:RM in due course. Tassedethe (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A new WP:RM discussion has been started here. Tassedethe (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Celibate vs Chaste in Edward Heath Article
Hi. I edited Edward Heath as 94.193.241.76 while not logged in. I have reverted "celibate" to "chaste" for a couple of reasons, which I will enumerate here in the hope of avoiding any kind of edit war. The authority you cite, the Guardian style guide, itself concedes that "celibate" is not strictly correct in reference to sexual abstinence: since the unambiguous "chaste" is available, I see no reason to prefer "celibate" even if we allow that it is acceptable. Other authorities (such as my counter-citation) exist that do not consider "celibate" acceptable. I would judge the Guardian style guide to be a poor source in any case, containing, as it does, such grievous errors as recommending "Cern" for "CERN" and "Centres for Disease Control" for "Centers ..." (I wasn't even looking for howlers — these just caught my casual eye under C while I was looking up the celibacy citation. I shudder to think what horrors the rest of the alphabet has in store).

If we cannot agree on "chaste", I hope we can compromise on some wording other than "celibate". To insist on "celibate" over all alternatives seems rather like an inverted form of pedantry. Let us not mandate lexicographically contentious usage when said contention can so easily be circumvented by re-casting the sentence. The sentence is short, and would not be overburdened by a more detailed exposition such as, e.g., "Heath was a lifelong bachelor and perhaps never sexually active". GideonF (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

George Kerevan
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: George Kerevan. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sammy Wilson (footballer)
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Sammy Wilson (footballer). Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

My edit to the Pirate Jenny Talk Page
Hi Pat. I received your message about my edit to the Pirate Jenny talk page. Of course I deleted that comment on the page and it wasn't accidental. The comment I deleted was my own comment and I deleted it because I wasn't sure of the accuracy of my comment and I didn't have the time or desire to research and source it. Am I not allowed to remove my own possibly incorrect comment? Why did you restore it? Thanks. 66.234.41.17 (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Steve L.

Articles for deletion nomination of Adams family abuse controversy
I have nominated Adams family abuse controversy, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Adams family abuse controversy. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Off2riorob (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

John Logie Baird image needed
Hiya... i felt compelled to sign in after i saw there was no image for the man who invented the television (and colour television). For one of the most important inventors in the 20th century this needs to be addressed Pat. I'm completely new to wiki and have no idea whatsoever how to upload images, also i'm using someone elses computer. I'd be grateful if you could somehow see that this great man has his image up (also noticed Alan Turing needs an image as theres only has a statue)... thanks Pat. 1990Jessica (talk) 06:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

J. Kevin Barlow
It was a wreck, but I sourced it a bit. I think he passes WP:N as an activist. So I removed your prod. Bearian (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Shaun Brady
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Shaun Brady. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Keith Norman
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Keith Norman. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title
You are invited to join the discussion at. DrKiernan (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using )

This IP should be banned from anonymous contributions
This IP belongs to an entire school district and should not be allowed to make anonymous contributions, they will invariably involve vandalism. --204.100.184.166 (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Perjury changes
Hey, I've reverted them for now as there is no source. Can you discuss them on the talk page first and find a source? A source is required as if it is false you are libelling them. Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

George IV
I see nothing controversial about it. It achieves consistency with similar articles - George I, for example. Deb (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

2016
Please see WT:YEARS I was willing to consider US Presidential elections as being notable, but I'm not sure even a notable election should be included until there's a declared candidate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaker of the house
Yes sorry for the confusion. I was given a talk by my local MP who informed me of this interesting fact. I appreciate that sources need to be cited and therefore I agree with your removal. Sorry for any disruption this may have caused you. God Bless --AycliffeAngel (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bob Bird


The article Bob Bird has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unsourced, no evidence of notability.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kevin (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Louis Philippe I, King of the French
Pat,

Please go to this for what I found on the reason for the use of "I".

Next: "to hyphen or not to hyphen, that is the question."

Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Polgar and holocaust
Hi Pat, you had made this edit about the Polgar ancestors affected by the holocaust. The current article has a trimmed version of your edit though. Can you provide a reference for the holocaust statement. Jay (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Gorn
"most people would realise the Gorn is the one on the right" - Welllll. You can never be quite sure ... ;-) Pdfpdf (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Rollback
Hello Pat. Since you do a lot of AV work, would you like me to request rollback for you? It's much faster than undo, as I can tell you from experience. Just tell me if you do. See you around, --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ Here you go. Good luck! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Nero Caesar
Hi there,

I notice that last April you:

a) Retitled the page "Nero Caesar" to Nero (son of Germanicus), and

b) Put a "Nero Caesar" redirect on the page of emperor Nero.

Any chance that this might be undone? Germanicus' son (Nero Julius Caesar) is commonly differentiated from the emperor (Nero Claudius Caesar) by calling the former "Nero Caesar" and the latter just plain "Nero" (i.e. the Nero, without qualification). Similarly, we have Nero Caesar's brother, commonly called Drusus Caesar to differentiate him from Nero Drusus and Drusus the Younger.

Anyway, tell me what you think...

Many thanks Catiline63 (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Constituency lists
I've responded to you at Talk:List of United Kingdom Parliament constituencies. You are missing the point of the move request. I want Constituencies in the United Kingdom general election, 2010 to be moved to List of United Kingdom Parliament constituencies. For the moment, that can't happen because there is already an out-of-date article there. It is obvious that something needs to be done with that out-of-date article, but moving the 2010 list to where it belongs shouldn't have to await consensus on what to do with the out-of-date information. -Rrius (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss Trevor Ringland article
Please do contribute to the discussion page for the Trevor Ringland article. Personally I'm voting agaist deletion since Trevor played both for the Irish team in the first rugby world cup and he also played for the Lions. I look forward to reading your contribution to the debate. Samcol1492 (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Metcalfe (UK politician)
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Stephen Metcalfe (UK politician). The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Charlie Elphicke
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Charlie Elphicke. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Pamela Nash
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Pamela Nash. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Gregg McClymont
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Gregg McClymont. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Fiona O'Donnell
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Fiona O'Donnell. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Nigel Mills
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Nigel Mills. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

David Morris (English politician)
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: David Morris (English politician). The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Michael Dugher
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Michael Dugher. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Stephen Metcalfe (UK politician)


The article Stephen Metcalfe (UK politician) has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. NW ( Talk ) 00:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ian Murray

 * RM. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not an uncontroversial move! Either this person is the primary meaning of "Ian Murray", in which case the move was wrong, or he is not, so we need to carry out the multiple move, which needs discussion and admin. involvement. I propose to move this back while the issue is properly discussed. PatGallacher (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If the only obstacle to an uncontroversial move is a navigation aid (e.g., a redirect or an unnecessary disambiguation page with a minor edit history), the template db-move can be used instead to have that page deleted under criterion for speedy deletion G6. Note that this template requires two parameters: db-move. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ian Murray (Scottish politician)
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Ian Murray (Scottish politician). The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Julie Hilling
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Julie Hilling. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Graeme Morrice
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Graeme Morrice. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Rude edit summary
Please note that using the word "Nonsense!" in an Edit summary may be perceived as a personal attack. Admins are particularly unamused with personal attacks delivered via Edit summary. --Mais oui! (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Docherty (politician)
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Thomas Docherty (politician). The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth Kendall
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Elizabeth Kendall. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob Walter
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Bob Walter. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Justin Tomlinson
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Justin Tomlinson. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ian Fraser (politician)
I have reverted your reversion and explained on the talk page why. If you want to respond, please do so on the article's talk page, as I'm not watching your page.  Schwede 66  01:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bill Esterson


The article Bill Esterson has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  secretariat  ─╢ 16:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan Reynolds
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Jonathan Reynolds. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Robert Buckland


The article Robert Buckland has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. WWGB (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Advice on getting format consensus?
Care to give me some advice here? Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced BLPs
Please refrain from creating articles, especially those of biographies of living persons, without including a reliable source. Thank you, NW ( Talk ) 18:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey!
You watch your tone! Terms like incompetent are uncivil, right? I tried to move Catherine, Lady Knollys to Catherine Carey but I was prevented from doing it. That's why it was "incompetent", nothing else. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia War title
I made a proposal before the move request, which I think represents a decent compromise on the main issues.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Quite likely: I need to remember to avoid links in headers... Thanks again, TFOWRpropaganda 13:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Your rollback request
Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:
 * Rollback gives you access to certain tools, including Huggle, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
 * Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
 * Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
 * Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
 * Please read Help:Reverting and Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
 * You can test Rollback at New admin school/Rollback
 * You may wish to display the User wikipedia/rollback userbox and/or the Rollback top icon on your user page
 * If you have any questions, please do let me know. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears that you misused your rollback tool with this edit summary. Rollback is for blatant vandalism. It was only one edit so it does not jump out as a major concern. However, some editors chose not to see minor edits on their watchlists and the tool marked it as minor.Cptnono (talk) 23:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Talk:James Connolly
With all due respect, why would you restore a message which contained nothing but random comments and bitching about how the article is no good? I did not see a single helpful suggestion in that message, made by an anonymous user who's not made a single positive contribution to the project. At some point, a person has to do something other than make talk page comments, they have to pitch in and improve an article. Nothing was lost by my removing that message. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 17:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This appears to be another questionable use of rollback. WP:FORUM and a few other standards could apply for removal. Since it is questionable, it might have been better to not use rollback. There are a few others that appear to be plain bad edits and not vandalism. Take it easy with your new tool. Cptnono (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ali El Awaisi
A tag has been placed on Ali El Awaisi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Theresa McDermott
A tag has been placed on Theresa McDermott requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ismail Patel
A tag has been placed on Ismail Patel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Mary O'Malley (playwright)
Hi Pat. Developments on this article. I have edited the lastest additions (links/citations needed etc) but I would like you to cast an eye over it and revise my revisions if necessary. The text you see now, I know was added by Mary O'Malley's literary agent, and you can see her original additions as well of course. She has removed the info and links to the 'women writers' retreat and to Mary's brother Tony, which to me seemed reasonable and pertinent, and which you might want to re-insert, but I have info to more than suspect it has something to do with a personal vested interest in what is presented. Although what has been written by the agent appears from a disinterested point of view, removal of uncontentious text because it might not suit the particular face that the subject wishes to present might not be Wikipedia kosher I suspect. In itself there appears not much wrong but it might be wise to keep an eye on the article as the latest major editor might be under the mistaken belief that a Wikipedia article is 'owned' and is an extension of publicity. As Pohick2 has edited the article too, I have also asked him/her to cast an eye over it as well. Many thanks,

Acabashi (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

List of participants of the Gaza flotilla
You recently added Raza Agha, Kimberly Soto Aguayo, Amil Sarsour and Viktoria Strand, Sümeyye Ertekin, Abbas Al Lawati and Joe Meadors to List of participants of the Gaza flotilla. Please, explain why they are notable enough to be listed. Do you any references about their notability (other then a news about them being on the flotilla). --Kslotte (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This edit, the articles you are referring to has no notability at all. Cevdet Kılıçlar, being a journalist and dieing won't make notable. Theresa McDermott, she is an activist with nothing she is especially known for or notable. --Kslotte (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As I see (after some consideration) it we could include Theresa McDermott, since she has been detained once before. --Kslotte (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Bobby Moffet
I have nominated Bobby Moffet, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Bobby Moffet. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Mkativerata (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Theresa McDermott


The article Theresa McDermott has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Lack of notability: see People notable only for one event

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Gus Macdonald
I'm not sure I agree with this move. I'd say he's best known for being a minister, as Lord Macdonald of Tradeston. I don't think he's "primarily known by his personal name" as the guideline states.  J Rawle  (Talk) 16:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think he was widely known as a broadcaster before he got his title. However raise a move request if you want. PatGallacher (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi
What do you think about the last version of Cevdet Kılıçlar ? Takabeg (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Gibson
Yep, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Peter Murray (journalist)
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Peter Murray (journalist). The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Peter Murray (journalist)


The article Peter Murray (journalist) has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 04:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure about the reliability of the sources? I added the sources, but when I checked the organization's website for their officers, they do not use the titles shown in the sources and do not reflect Murray as a current officer. (and have you thought about archiving your talk page?)Active Banana (talk) 04:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission
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, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes 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. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

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. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

John Munro
Hi there, not sure whether you've seen it, but John Munro did get moved after all. That surprised me somewhat, given that you put up a good argument against this. Get back to me on my talk page if you want to do something about it, otherwise I'll start tidying up after the move by redirecting incoming links to the dab page.  Schwede 66  23:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

=Historic Criteria of West in the European Continent= Go to the talk page of western world. 80% of the sentencesof wikipedia haven't references and sources. Why shoud I write source for evidences? In Earth artice the statement about Earth (The earth is round) hasn't source, because it is an evidence. Like 1+1 = 2. Please be more patient and polite, and don't threat me, I've friends, who (for example) can hang up your admin status. BYE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubes99 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

= Sabotage =

Hi Pat,

Regarding our recent sabotage edits to the Gaza flotilla article.

The problem I have with its inclusion is two-fold:

1) These are allegations based on zero information. While the allegations WERE reported in RS, they don't have any factual weight.

2) The current wording "possibly due to Israeli sabotage" gives far more weight to these allegations than they deserve.

If you feel this information needs to be included, perhaps it could be put in the section Allegations regarding the intent of the parties.

But even if it is included, it would need to be worded something like: "Some groups have made allegations of Israeli sabotage, but there is no evidence to back up their claims."

I'm going to make a temporary change to the wording above and leave it in the Ships section for the time being, but I really think it should be moved elsewhere or excluded.

Thoughts?

Zuchinni one (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

John Travers
Hi there, regarding your comment on the John Travers talk page, I'm not quite sure why you suggest that this should have been discussed first. It was clearly wrong and as such, the move was uncontroversial. When things are wrong, I'm bold and just move it. When there's a chance of it being controversial, I use the move proposal process. I'd be keen to hear your thoughts.  Schwede 66  01:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Chloe Salaman
A tag has been placed on Chloe Salaman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Steamroller Assault (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Non-neutral point of view?
What please, is non-neutral about using the official name of a city in an article that mentions that city? 84.181.96.178 (talk) 10:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

your addition
I am unable to find a good reason for your adding that content to the talkpage, please explain? Why did you add it? Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I undid the deletion as this seemed like a legitimate, if controversial, contribution to the talk page which was deleted without good reason. The Wikipedia community is entitled to take a considered decision about what, if anything, should be done with this material. PatGallacher (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to get it, when I remove some content for my stated reasons and you look at my stated reason and decide to add the material again, it is you that have added it, do you understand that? I expressed my reasons for removing it, it is worthless, with no relation to adding anything to the article, as I said it is also copy and paste excessive content with possible copyright issues and there is no value to it being on the talkpage, a link to the content for discussion is more than enough, remove it or discuss its value on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of John Dixon (Liberal Democrat)
Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 18:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I wish to protest that this article has twice been speedily deleted, when in both cases the grounds stated for speedy deletion appear to be invalid. In the first case it was described as an "attack page", when it was not. In the second case it was clearly sourced, at least one of them was clearly an RS, but it was deleted with the statement "DB BIO". This is a cryptic message, not good practice, it took me a bit of time to figure out what this meant, I think it means that the article did not contain an assertion of notability, but it did. PatGallacher (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi!
I believe I followed the guidelines. There are many pages named with a given name and a date, when there is many people only known by a single given name, like happens in this case. In summ, there was a good reason, and I think being bold makes this better. I've created dozens of dab pages, and this one looks definitely better. --Againme (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for never answering!--Againme (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

José Maria de Almeida
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: José Maria de Almeida. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

King Bill I and II
Hi Pat,

At Talk:Wilhelm II, German Emperor you write "I am not aware of any guideline, in the case of multiple move requests, relating to which of the articles it should be placed at, that's a new one on me".

While I guess it's true that they could be placed anywhere, it would seem to make sense to me that it was placed at the talk page of the first article listed for discussion (in this case, Wilhelm I, German Emperor, not Willhelm II). It can be confusing otherwise, if only temporarily, that it's at another page. I thnk the problem here was exascerbated by the fact that it was not listed for discussion at Talk:Wilhelm I, German Emperor until I added it. Seems like something got mixed up somewhere.

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Stun Grenade
Hi Pat,

I regarding the edit you just made to the Gaza flotilla removing mention of the stun grenade "because it wasn't in the source". Here is the video, from the source listed showing the stun grenade.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6sAEYpHF24&feature=player_embedded

Here is a mention of it in the Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/02/israel-gaza-attack-flotil_n_597951.html

Here is a mention of it in the Jerusalem Post

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177261

I do agree with the "fire bomb" not being verified though so that should probably stay out. But can you self-revert the stun grenade part?

Thanks,

The stun grenade was not in the source originally quoted, the IDF website. The video raises several problems. PatGallacher (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Zuchinni one (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of these issues, this should really have been raised on the article's talk page not here. I suspect some attempt to get round the 1RR. PatGallacher (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Your Gaza flotilla raid revert
Hi. I'm going to reinstate the change you just reverted. I realize it's a long article, but it's a relevant, well-cited quotation, and besides, the section is out-of-balance without a single non-governmental commentator being included. But in making the edit you appear to have missed the point of he quotation I added. Geller's description of a humanitarian aid flotilla as "the jihad warship flotilla" is so utterly laughable, and her assertion that it was launched "to provoke the tiny Jewish State into war" is so completely ridiculous, that the effect her statements will have on intelligent readers will be just the opposite of what she intended. Sometimes the best way to expose someone to ridicule is just to let them speak. Best, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

NCNT
I really think you should start a discussion at WP:NCNT if you believe that Wikipedia should not recognise titles for formerly reigning royals. Because that is the complete opposite to current practice, there are literally hundreds if not thousands of formerly reigning royals whose article names include titles. I don’t see the point in trying to change one or two here and there, if you feel strongly about the issue surely you would want to change the whole practice and system. - dwc lr (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Romani_people
Replied. Nergaal (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Tony Benn
Re. this edit - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Benn&diff=377329904&oldid=377308972 In future, please refer to this discussion on the talk page before adding erroneous and harmful information. Terryitaloan (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

RE:Dad's Army characters
How do you speedy close an AFD? I'm not really sure why the nominator didn't just prod/merge template it. I'd much rather have it as a redirect than simply delete the article, because of all the incoming links. Bob talk 16:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you can speedy close an AFD, the discussion ought to run its course. PatGallacher (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Warning?
Excuse me?? Surtsicna (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

rv deletion of anime trivia
Of course it's trivial, do we need to mention every time a chesire cat was featured in some obscure anime/manga episode watched only by about 13 Wapanese nerds? Trivia sections should be avoided if possible as per the WP:MOS, and if they are used, should at least contain notable information 87.112.144.247 (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Davey Hall


The article Davey Hall has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one.  ttonyb (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Erdinç Tekir
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MV_Avrasaya, the material which appears to violate BLP policy is added again this time to the talk page of the article of the ship he hijacked. I'm against use of terrorism.info.org as you can see from my note there. What dou you think? Kavas (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC) See. I don't think that you deleted that comment erroneously, right? Kavas (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Quest for Love (1988)
This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Quest for Love (1988), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Quest for Love. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. VWBot (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Moors murders
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Moors murders. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Yworo (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I am well aware of the dangers of edit warring. However I feel I should point out that I stopped before violating the 3RR, which I have no intention of breaking, Maleus Fatuorum did not. PatGallacher (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I reverted your addition of a POV tag as it was unexplained; although in your edit summary you referred to the talk page there was nothing there. While you may have been drafting an explanation, in this instance it would be better to be circumspect and talk things over before being bold. #Especially as you've already been warned for edit warring and have not bothered discussing the issue properly. Nev1 (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I would have thought that if somebody says "see talk" or similar they are entitled to a couple of minutes to explain themselves. As I have now done so can I put the flag back? PatGallacher (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you can discuss the issue on the talk page. If you edit war against consensus you will be blocked. Nev1 (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you an admin? PatGallacher (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Fraid so. Nev1 (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yerevan post-independence
First, the number of deaths was 8 and not 10, second, talking about demonstrations in the history section does not represent an important period in the history of the city. If you want to talk about those events you are welcome in this article. Kevorkmail (Kevorkmail) 19:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Derren Nesbitt
Hi Pat. For what it's worth, I can confirm that is the subject, per a correspondence found on the OTRS system. That confirmation may help with any future communication with this IP. Best, Peter Symonds ( talk ) 21:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Archives?
Hey, for what it's worth, I think you might want to start archiving your talk page (which is becoming a hassle to go through)! See : Archiving.

You don't have to do so, but it would make it much easier to read!

Thanks!  CET  &#8224;  11:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mariano Ferreyra
A tag has been placed on Mariano Ferreyra requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles – see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Bongo  matic  20:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Plínio de Arruda Sampaio


The article Plínio de Arruda Sampaio has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Epbr123 (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kasia Haddad


The article Kasia Haddad has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Biography of a living person that does not contain any references to show it meets Wikipedia's standards.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Killiondude (talk) 06:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)