User talk:Paul A/2011-1

Regarding Vakas Siddiqui
Hello Paul, i saw that you've contributed on this article Vakas Siddiqui. WOuld you please contribute more to improve this, since this has been proposed for deletion. Appreciate your favor and will appreciate if you add more. 175.110.97.21 (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Anna Karenina (disambiguation)
Hi. I'm proposing that the Adaptations page be re-merged into the dab page, as I feel that your demerger didn't really solve anything - see my remarks at Talk:Anna Karenina (disambiguation). Feel free to comment there. Best. --GuillaumeTell 21:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Stygia (Conan) for deletion
The article Stygia (Conan) is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Stygia (Conan) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sadads (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

February 2011
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Scott Ford (ice hockey), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. ''Please stop removing categories from stub ice hockey articles. Teams played for are supported by Hockeydb source listed in article. '' Dolovis (talk) 06:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Rob Hisey, you may be blocked from editing. ''Please stop removing categories from stub ice hockey articles. 'Teams played for' are supported by Hockeydb source listed in article. '' Dolovis (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"Other people" must always be the first thing on the page
Why? Pdfpdf (talk) 09:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Manual of Style (lead section): "Disambiguation links should be the first elements of the page, before any maintenance tags, infobox or image; if a reader has reached the wrong page, they typically want to know that first. Text-only browsers and screen readers present the page sequentially." —Paul A (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So, as I expected, it's not a case of "must". OK. Thanks for the definitive answer - very helpful. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT
Thanks. I should know, but often get it wrong - or forget to put it in at all. To me, it should always be, including. But maybe it is a bit too late to change basic syntax now. I will try to remember. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Andrzej Poczobut
thank you Decora (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Michael Gough (voice actor)


The article Michael Gough (voice actor) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Zero independent sources, entire article is just a copy of the roles list from IMDB.

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. Guy (Help!) 23:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Masha Novoselova
Hi, Paul A. You placed a 'hoax' tag on the article Masha Novoselova, but did not note on the talk page why you think it is a hoax or what areas you think might be false. There is apparently a model by that name, but I know nothing about her. Cnilep (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't have a positive reason for thinking it was a hoax; it just gave me a feeling. The poor punctuation and grammar, combined with what looked like a byline saying "this article was written by a student with coincidentally the same name as the subject", made me think it might be some random inventing a glamourous past for herself. If there really is a model named Masha Novoselova, I guess I was wrong. —Paul A (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Defaultsort
''Just a reminder that  uses a colon, for example , not. —Paul A (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)''
 * Thanks. Is there a simple explanation of why DEFAULTSORT format is different to most other templates? Pdfpdf (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's because it isn't actually a template, it's a "magic word". For more information about these, see Help:Magic words. —Paul A (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment
This message is being sent to you because you have previously edited the Naming conventions (use English) page. There is currently a discussion that may result in a significant change to Wikipedia policy. Specifically, a consensus is being sought on if the policies of WP:UCN and WP:EN continues to be working policies for naming biographical articles, or if such policies have been replaced by a new status quo. This discussion is on-going at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), and your comments would be appreciated. Dolovis (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Hey, you had previously contributed a helpful edit to the article on the book Skipping Towards Gomorrah. Just an FYI that I have recently expanded the article with additional sourced information, you may be interested in it. Also, I recently created a new article by the same author, Savage Love: Straight Answers from America's Most Popular Sex Columnist. If you have any suggestions or ideas for additional secondary sources, please don't hesitate to stop by the articles talkpages. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Tortallan characters
Category:Tortallan characters, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Piping/default sort for Antarctic lakes
Hi Paul - just wondering why you changed the default sort on several Antarctic lakes... they are deliberately default-sorted by the name of the lake rather than by "Lake" so that they appear at the right place in all the categories they are in (e.g., "Chapman" for Lake Chapman in the Antarctic lakes category, the Ross landforms category, and in the Ross stub category). With the default sort you're giving them, they have to be piped in both the lakes and landforms categories, and cannot be put in their right place in the stub category (stub templates don't allow for piping). I've changed them back so that they appear in the right place - if they need to be put under "Lake" in the landforms category (which they shouldn't be, if other landform cats are anything to go by), then they can be piped there. Also, the template's name is DEFAULTSORT, not Defaultsort, which is a redirect - that's no biggie, but it's better to use the proper name if possible. Grutness...wha?  11:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a minute. You added Defaultsort. I corrected it to DEFAULTSORT (which, by the way is a magic word, not a template). You changed it back to the incorrect code. —Paul A (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That is extremely weird, but you're right - my apologies. I've just added DEFAULTSORT:Foo to 700 pages... why I should suddenly do the lakes a different way is a mystery to me. Grutness...wha?  01:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Now, about the sort order. My understanding is that in a category about lakes, a lake article is sorted by its name without the Lake bit, but in any more general category (including "landforms") it's sorted by its full name, including the Lake bit. Thus the default sort should be the lake's actual name, and only the Antarctic lakes category should be piped. If this is incorrect, I would appreciate a pointer to where in the guidelines it says so. —Paul A (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that if a town is called "Lake Foo", it's sorted under L. If a lake is called "Lake Foo" it's sorted under F. Here are some examples. Certainly that's always the way that I've catalogued them, and I've been working on geography articles for quite a few years... Grutness...wha?  01:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok to speedy delete Brouhaha
I created it thinking it was more of a term than just a word, but after floating it, I came upon the discussion to delete a previous entry since it's only a definition. If you'd like to delete it speedily please do so; I forgot what tag to put on it or maybe I should have Prodded it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

On First-order reliability method

 * The First-order reliability method article is currently a stub, but I believe it is quite clear that it has more than enough interesting information to create an interesting and valuable wikipedia article, instead of being relegated to a wiktionary article. Although to this time I hadn't enough time to add more info, I believe it is reasonable to expect that in the near future some wikipedians, including myself, will be able to invest a bit of their time to expand the article.  Therefore, please reconsider your proposal to relegate the subject to a mere wiktionary entry -- Mecanismo | Talk 12:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The proposal is only to move to Wiktionary if you can't expand the article. If, as you say you can, you can expand the article, you have nothing to worry about. The proposal will be withdrawn when the article has been suitably expanded. —Paul A (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Murder of Laci Peterson
An article that you have been involved in editing, Murder of Laci Peterson, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. pablo 13:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)