User talk:Refsworldlee/archive05

Darius J Pearce
DJP has self-destructed as a political activist, following the concurrent disasters of of an acrimonious marital breakdown and a comically inept campaign for Constable. The collapse of his front organisations, Progress Jersey and Jersey Conservative Party has followed from the loss of their sole active member, DJP. Now that it is clear that he is not a rising star, nor are PJ and JCP groups of substance, the case for AfDs is stronger than ever. DJP was last heard of in jail for domestic disturbances and will be unable to return to Jersey's political scene in the short to medium term future. Daverotherham (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. Such is public life it seems. I will not be actively seeking the article's destruction myself. Thanks for the reply. Ref (chew) (do) 20:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Playing the party political game again Dave? DP will be standing in the next election and was found not guilty. Honestly some people! RichardColgate (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No more political banter here, please. And please post at the bottom of each thread. Thanks. Ref (chew) (do) 17:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Jersey Evening Post of 7th March 2008 publishes an account of Mr Pearce having been remanded in custody following an alleged assaault on his wife, which he was acquitted of. This is a checkable secondary source for the hearsay I passed to you on 23rd January. Daverotherham (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ingeborg
Hello - I took a stab at copy editing the article. Take a look at it and see if it makes more sense to you now. I think it was mostly a matter of bad spelling. You added your stub templates while I was editing. I wrote my edits on top of yours, but tried to incorporate your changes, too. Please check your last edits and make sure I integrated them correctly. Thanks. Scbarry (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandal
Hi. Thanks for the message. You'll notice he earned himself an indef block because I noticed your warnings on his talk page and I therefore checked his edit history. Thanks for your careful work in warning vandals - it pays off. --Dweller (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Project Blades
Hi,

The members of WP Football keep getting their knickers in a twist about wanting to delete the Sheffield United project (or subsume it into some taskforce thing). (See here) I've headed them off at the pass so far but more views and consensus on the Blades project page might be of help.

Thanks Bladeboy1889 (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

William Rawson
I note your request for a citation about the statement that I added to the William Rawson article that "This was the first occasion on which two brothers played for England in the same match." Unfortunately I have scoured the web and my various reference books and nowhere does it say this explicitly, even though it can be verified quite simply by scrolling through the team lists for the first few England matches. Although John Charles Clegg played in the first match and his brother William Clegg was in the second they did not play together. William Rawson and Herbert Rawson played in Match 4. As I say, I cannot find this "fact" mentioned anywhere. On the contrary, the history of the Wanderers says that Hubert Heron and his brother Francis Heron (or Frank) were the first brothers to play together but that was not until match 5 in 1876. If I can find a citation, I will add it to the Rawson article. I hope this clarifies the position. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Replied to your talk page. Ref (chew) (do) 22:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Professional Network/Service
I was off internet for six days, and have returned to be swamped, with another big trip this weekend. So it may be 2 weeks till I get to checking, as I also have some deadlines. My first inclination is to be skeptical about both. Bellagio99 19:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Professional network/service
I've looked at the articles. They are accurate as far as they go (which is not far). There is serious move to develop such networking services for white-collar workers. The services listed are all known, relatively longstanding, and sizeable. In short, I'd leave the articles, altho they may well become honeypots for linkspammers trying to make their fortune.Bellagio99 (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Replied to your talk page. Ref (chew) (do) 22:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Betty C. Hearnes
In response to your "proposed deletion" nomination of Betty C. Hearnes, I have re-established the article as a redirect page to the article on her husband, Warren E. Hearnes. Furthermore, I have also added a follow up note to my "request for assessment" on the now-merged article, effectively withdrawing the request. --TommyBoy (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Replied to your talk page. Ref (chew) (do) 22:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Betty C. Hearnes Follow Up
I just recieved your reply. In this case, I believed that merging the two articles was a better solution because it affords other users, including the article's original creator, User:Durindaljb more opportunities to prove her notability. The biggest problems I saw with the article were: (1) lack of cited reliable sources, (2) over-emphasis on her service as Missouri First Lady, which focuses mainly on her role as the wife of Warren E. Hearnes, (3) Little or no information on her own career which included service in the Missouri House of Representatives, a failed 1988 bid for Missouri Governor, and a failed 1992 bid for Missouri State Senate. If the article is re-established and the aforementioned problems are correct, I might be inclined to support a separate article for Betty C. Hearnes. --TommyBoy (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

B. Traven
I have read your comments and will give them some thought. I do think that you should take account of the complexity of the subject matter, the number of ideas in play and the tenuous nature of the facts on offer. For instance, we don't even know if B. Traven existed as a separate individual. The section 'concerns and other theories', were not meant to be my concerns but those frequently come accross in the literature on the matter. They often don't belong to one writer but to many. The article tries to avoid presenting a solution, merely to illustrate the nature of the problem. Your suggestion that the aricle presents facts and leaves readers to make up their own mind is over-simplistic. In summarising a vast amount of reseach (one reseacher has 96 volumes on this subject) it is necessary to decide what is important and what isn't. That involves editorial judgement. Also, is it not necessary to draw readers attention to areas where facts are unknowable (unanswered questions)?

I appreciate your not wanting to get into an edit war so I should be grateful foryour suggestions as to how to proceed.

--John Price (talk) 09:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Replied to your talk page. Ref (chew) (do) 11:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thnaks for your reply. The inherent problem which is set out in the article, is that while we have books written by B. Traen, no-one ever claimed to have written them. Nonetheless, it has been established that one particular man was closely involved and may well have been the author. That brings in the second problem - that man lived under a series of aliases and we do not know his real name. He also specialised in disinformation saying that 'anyone who asks questions, deserves to be told lies'. In the circumstancess a conventional biographical entry is not possible - how can you have an entry in name of someone whose name is unkwown, as is their precise relationship to the work with which they are associated?. What do you think of this suggestion - have one article dealing with the works attributable to B. Traven, another with his identity? This may however make matters more confusing.


 * I cannot however accept your suggestion that the article be culled. A shorter article would beg a great many questions and would not do justice to an important writer and a literay mystery of considerable interest to many.


 * --John Price (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Carolyn McCarthy
This article is a Start rating? This is a congresswomen, not a senator, whose signature issue is gun control. The lede includes a description of her district and her signature issue. The early life bio is fleshed out with all relevant and interesting detail. Her political bio is complete. A list of political positions is presented with much detail involving gun control. The other issues are ancillary to her work -- would it be better if I grouped them into one section, such as "Other positions"? Or do you think I need to flesh out her position on (say) the death penalty which is already complete? The electoral history is compactly laid out and the statements are exhaustively and properly referenced along with a good set of external links. What precisely are you looking for to raise this to a "B"? I've seen hundreds of Starts and Bs for bios that don't come near to this one (if I may say so myself, which, natch, I am. ;) ). &#8756; Therefore | talk 17:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for the post. And I've seen much longer and fuller articles remain start-Class too.


 * Whether she is a congresswoman or a senator does not matter one bit in my eyes - I do not owe her article any more respect than I would give to a senator's piece. Status is not the point. Although everything is there as it should be regarding Wikification (lead-in, sections, referencing, infobox, categories, et al), more flesh to the bone indeed. Those sub-sections which consist of one paragraph or sentence (or indeed one paragraph in one sentence) would ideally be expanded to give a broader angle on each of her political philosophies and contributions. I think it would be difficult to combine them as you suggest, given their diversity.


 * Nothing is completely ancillary where biographies are concerned, very often adding much to the sum total. Are there any substantial issues or points of interest arising out of her work on Committees? That seems to me ripe for expansion, if sourceable.


 * Your other option is to post the article back at Assessment for re-evaluation, where I promise not to touch it. But please, whatever you do, don't fall into the "conflict of interest" trap, whereby I refer to your substantial history as a main contributor. When I do the same with "my" articles, it is impossible for me to remain truly objective, and that's obviously why self-assessment is discouraged, but also why I accept without question those ratings decided upon for my contributing articles.


 * Good luck with it. Thanks. Ref (chew) (do) 22:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks -- that was what I was looking for, a bit of direction for improvement. You are right, it is difficult to step back and evaluate one's own work. As a side point, my point about her being a congressperson v. senator was that you may not expect their bio to be as meaty. But I will go back and take your suggestions and work on improving the article. Thanks! &#8756; Therefore | talk 22:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent. I spent so much time working on Oliver Golding (a minor English child actor) that in the end, in the small hours in front of the PC, he seemed (to me) the most notable person on earth, not a 15 year old kid. Well, not really that bad, but you see what I mean about care when pushing one's own stuff? Good luck, as I say. Very good article now, keep at it. Ref (chew) (do) 22:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Omnidirectional Treadmill
Refs - thanks for the patent edit. To maintain neutrality, I am contacting you here for a corrected reference. The original ODT patent is 5,562,522, issued 10/08/96. This first unit is the one funded by STRICOM, and finally housed at ARL. The second ODT patent,6,152,854, issued in 1999, is the belt-based design. This second-generation technology is funded by ARL. Deployment is ongoing through the end of 2008.

One of the editors asked if I am indeed David E. E. Carmein. Answser: yes. Call any time: 734.368.1158

Vspace (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)dcarmein

Notability of non-playing footballers (AfD:Paul Rodgers (footballer))
Hello! You contributed to AfD:Paul Rodgers by voting to keep him. As you may know, WP:FOOTY is currently working to finalize a Notability criteria. One of the points of the current suggestion that are still being debated is more or less a translation of AfD:Paul Rodgers. I'm now trying to come up with a suggestion that summarizes this AfD, and would like you to comment on my interpretation of your arguments, and perhaps even discuss a suggestion. Thank you! Sebisthlm (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Anna Neagle revisited
Thanks for the comments on the updates I did for the Anna Neagle article. I will read over it and begin correcting it in the next few days.

With Ms. Neagle, I have noticed an interesting - and simultaneously frustrating – paradox:

Despite the fact that she was a major star in British films in the 1930s and 40s (as much so as Bette Davis, Barbara Stanwyck, and Joan Crawford were in American films), there seems to be very little information written about her.

There is apparently no scholarly biography about her (unless you can count her now out-of-print autobiography), no serious critical analysis of her work as an actress or singer, no fan club (as least that I know of), and no web site devoted to her.

Only a handful of her films are currently available on DVD. A box set of six of her films was recently released in England, but in the United States (where I live), there is nothing except for the public domain Forever and a Day.

It is my hope, then, that what I put on the Wikipedia article about her will give a "job start" to some serious attention to her life and career. Jimknut 01:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ricardo Valenzuela
This is now a disambiguation page, instead of redirect to Ritchie Valens. Keep up the great work. →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Simon
I just recieved your message regarding the Arthur Simon article. Unfortunately, I don't know anything about Arthur Simon other than fact that before I edited the article, it had not been tagged for inclusion in, or assessed by WikiProject Biography. --TommyBoy (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page. Ref (chew) (do) 10:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Simon Follow Up
Thank you for your reply. As I said in my earlier comments, I have no particular attachment to the Arthur Simon article, having only recently stumbled across from a link from his brother's Wikipedia article, but it is clear to me that the article has some serious problems which need to be remedied. I have left messages on the Talk page of the article's creator and two other Wikipedians who have previously edited the article informing them of the situation with the article. Hopefully, they will be able to provide the assistance needed to improve the article, and fix the problems that you have tagged it for. On a related note, thank you for explaining the minimum standards for assessment on WikiProject Biography, I will keep that it mind when submitting requests for assessment. --TommyBoy (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page. Ref (chew) (do) 15:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * For interest's sake, the re-construction job on this article has now been done and article assessed. Thanks. Ref (chew) (do) 16:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Anna Neagle
Hello. I'm hoping for yet another reappraisal of the article on British actress Anna Neagle. I have reworked the text into what I hope is a more prosaic form, removed POV phrasing, and added and corrected the footnotes.

Also, just out of curiousity, what do the phrases "chew" and "do" refer to? Jimknut (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page. Ref (chew) (do) 20:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Template:Netherlands-footy-bio-stub
Of course, that looks like a mistake on my part. :)   jj137   (talk)  22:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Just pleasantly amused
I love your "wikipedians I disagree with" section!!! Cheers,  K u k i ni  hablame aqui 22:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page. Ref (chew) (do) 22:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Billy Bunter
I expanded and moved the section dealing with League of Extraordinary Gentlemen references since it was originally in the "trivia" section, which is clearly marked with a request to consolidate the material in other sections. I am therefore reverting to the version I posted, since your reversion wiped out the material I added that was Billy-specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.94.106.10 (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. As you wish, but I've been back to the article to fix the contextual references. The works of Frank Richards/Charles Hamilton/any other authorised Bunter ghost writer of that period have been separated from the more modern works and influences by sub-headings, and I'd appreciate it if they could be left in without you reverting. Those uninitiated readers who happen across the article need to know that, for instance, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen has absolutely nothing to do with what was intended by the originators/continuators of the character, and has been a basic re-working of the idea, without obviously being a plagiarism, as legal permission from Hamilton's estate must have been obtained by the LoEG team. Thanks. Ref (chew) (do) 20:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Armistead Lindsay Long
Thanks for your help on Armistead Lindsay Long, much appreciated! Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 03:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page. Ref (chew) (do) 11:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Small tip
yeah, thats what ive been told before. thats why i try and do as much anti-vandal work as i can. Ive only tried to create one article, and it was deleted due to WP:CORP, and everything else i know alot about is already made, thats why i usually end up editing existing pages. also, my computer is broken, so all of my editing is from school. They run Websense here, so most of the time my access to a good source is limited. the juggreserection IstKrieg! 15:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Mel Carnahan/Michael Devlin Assessment Requests
Thank you for responding to my assessment requests with respect to the Mel Carnahan and Michael J. Devlin articles. With respect to the Carnhan article, I agree with you that more sources, beyond the plane crash accident report should be added. I have striken my request from the WikiProject Biography assessment request list, and added a note regarding your response. As for the Devlin article, I think that if the problems you cited are corrected, the article could possibly be upgraded to at least Start-class. --TommyBoy (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Thanks for the welcome! Cheers, Localzuk(talk) 21:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Mel Carnahan Follow Up
In response to your request that references be added to the Mel Carnahan article. I have added a link to a biography of Carnahan from the Missouri State Treasurer's website, which appears to verify at least some of the information in the article. --TommyBoy (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Todd Palin AfD Discussion
I have nominated the article on Alaska First Gentleman Todd Palin for deletion, in a situation very similar to the now-redirected article on Betty C. Hearnes which you and I had previously discussed. If you have any thoughts on this matter, please feel free to share them. --TommyBoy (talk) 10:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Contributed to deletion discussion. Ref (chew) (do) 12:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Afd fixes
The preloaded template reads ~ . You have to take the whole part, braces and all, and replace it with the page name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops! I think I figured that out last time (months since I AfDed last!). Memory's going a bit - being 50-plus years old is a bitch. Thanks again. Ref (chew) (do) 16:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Date Linking
I just recieved your message regarding date linking. Just checking, was that message a result of any of my recent edits? --TommyBoy (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, but you may be mislead by advice from nearly two years ago. The editor's quote of guidelines from then may have changed, so he may have been right at the time, but now only the following is absolutely correct according to Manual of Style Dates and Numbers:
 * "March 15 2008"
 * Specialist years (piped and linked to specialist field) are OK, such as:
 * "2008 (specialist field: 'in film')"
 * but year-only (2008) should only be linked if access to the year's statistics is directly related to the article you are editing in (such as perhaps List of notable deaths in 2008, if ever an article is created with that title). Hope that clarifies things. Cheers. Ref (chew) (do) 14:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Slightly Bitey
Ref,

This message is slightly bitey don't you think:

Hi. If you are able to Close the above discussion as Delete, why have you not deleted the List?

Because you don't have the tools. So kindly wait for an admin to come along who does. I have restored the discussion, and would appreciate you leave it that way until the proper person deals with it. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 23:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

ANYONE can close an AFD - NOT just an admin, therefore, you just vandalized an AFD. I will revert it. Read the rules and don't touch it again.

Thank you ! Kosh Sez We don't need no stinkin FUR!! 23:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not bitey at all, my friend. Just using logic regarding the ability to delete. I am currently waiting for a reply from an admin over this, so I'll leave you to try to close the AfD against clear Keep consensus. Whatever you or I think, I'm sure the outcome will be correct. Thanks. Ref (chew) (do) 23:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message, no worries. It has only been three days though not five, never mind one user ignoring of course the consensus with perfectly valid reasons to Keep. Ah well! ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 23:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a heads up that the admin you have contacted hasn't been online since 9th march (I noticed you said you were waiting to hear back and just checked!). I see our friend has now made threats to report in his latest edit summary. Little point reverting him again, as I am sure any Admin looking at the discussion will see the consensus was to Keep with perfectly valid reasons with only one user the nominator wanting it deleted. However, I was just wondering if it might be worth asking the advice of another Admin? ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 00:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dearie me. I just noticed that in the edit summary. For some reason I missed it when I read it before. It actually gets funnier! I would love to see the "evidence" of sockpuppetry! ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 00:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of hooligan firms
Cheers - I guess you're right. Sorry I didn't notice your own attempts to discuss this before I left a note on his talk page. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 00:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your prompt action with the message on my user page! ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 20:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The cureheads
Hi, I am not the original poster. I would happily rewrite this article as this band have indeed been going for 18 years and are therefore worthy of note. If you would like me to I am happy to do it. You seem to be very harsh on the author. Not everyone is as computer savvy as you or I. Also "Amerikafka" is not a Cureheads album. It is a well known Gothic Rock Release from one of the members of The cureheads. It has been made into a musical in The USA I believe. I will check for some references for you if you like.

James Last. mexicanwaveuk@yahoo.com

keep up the good work by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.140.159 (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I do not withdraw deletion nominations, I prefer to let the Wikipedia community decide one way or the other. I never nominate articles for the scrapheap in the first place unless I have serious concerns about them, so why should I withdraw? The above article (and Amerikafka too) are outrageously biased simply by who is doing the bulk of the editing. Wikipedia expects editors to desist from creating or vastly expanding articles which are so close to their hearts, and in which they have direct involvement outside the encyclopedia.


 * If you are really nothing to do with the article (and I hope so, because admins have some pretty sophisticated tools in force to help them match up anonymous IPs such as yours, and current banned users, such as User:Curehead1) then feel free to improve it from a neutral point of view, inserting as many references for verification as possible, and allowing other editors free reign to edit it as well. If consensus meanwhile goes for deletion, then I'm sorry. Good luck. Ref (chew) (do) 21:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You might be interested to know that I have just nomintated Cureheads for AfD. OlenWhitaker   • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 15:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Kosh and hooligan
Hey Refsworldlee, thanks for your note. Turns out this is already being discussed at WP:AN/I, find a thread there accusing me of all sorts...  You may wish to chime in? All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Of course, thank you for taking the time. I can't promise to develope them further acording to wiki standards, if this is what you mean, as I don't have the confidence to do this, but perhaps they should not be turned in to Biography assessment in the first place, but rather simply be left as stubs, to someone with the time to develope them both according to wiki standards, as well as to general content- i should ad, that I don't mind if they are all assessed as stubs; I write the same articles as I would like to read myself, and if they are stubs- well, at least they are here! I also freely admit, that my spelling in the English language could be better then it currently is. Perhaps I should refrain to turn them into assessment in the future. I am grateful that you appreciated them! My best regards!--Aciram (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page. Ref (chew) (do) 21:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Peter Willis
Hello,

It may be worth noting on the article for Peter Willis (1985 Cup Final referee) that although player Kevin Moran is quoted as saying "I was sent off just before half time" - he was in fact sent off much later in the game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_FA_Cup_Final —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.28.180 (talk) 09:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for your message. Unfortunately, Wikipedia works with only sourced, or referenced, content (not internal articles such as 1985 FA Cup Final!), and the snippet regarding Kevin Moran in the Peter Willis article is claimed by such a source as actually being said by him in a published interview in the Guardian. I have been unable to find anything else on the internet to back up what you say, and none of my referee autobiography books mentions the Final in passing at all. I suppose you have a reason to be sure of what you are stating, but if it is not checkable by readers of the article, then it can't be included. I hope you understand. If you do find a reference for your version of events, please amend the article, or let me know it so that I can. Best wishes. Ref (chew) (do) 17:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, you are more than correct, looking at Soccerbase. He was indeed sent off in the 90th minute (the Cup Final article said 78th minute), so he must be mistaken in the interview. What I have done is clip the quote in the Peter Willis article so that his comment about exactly when he "walked" is removed, and the rest of the quote still tells what he thought of it. I have amended the 1985 FA Cup Final article to say 90th instead of 78th minute for his sending off, and backed it up with the Soccerbase link to the match (the other link didn't work anyway). I notice the substitution time was wrong too (45th minute not 90th), so I corrected that. Hope you are happy with this - I am. Best wishes. Ref (chew) (do) 17:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:(2)
If is can not use in Wikipedia, please delete it. Thank you. Albert (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Rating review for Graham Pulkingham article
Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for taking a look and even more thanks for leaving some helpful comments. Much appreciated. --Chris Jefferies (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page. Ref (chew) (do) 12:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Jordan Bayne
Before tagging articles as copyright violations, please be sure to check the talk page. We had a GFDL release of this content almost a year ago and the OTRS ticket information can be found there. Regards,  howcheng  {chat} 00:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page. Ref (chew) (do) 13:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Pieter Vink
Hello, Tell me, was the penalty clear or not? I think there can be no doubt that it was a 100% penalty. Kuyt grabbed Hleb's arm from behind. And it wasn't just minor contact, it brought Hleb done. I would like to argue that this is an objective fact. Also, what clearly can not be argued is that the ref was right next to the incident and he had a clear and unobstructed view. These two facts clearly lead to the conclusion that the ref made a big mistake, which might be decisive.

I believe that Wikipedia is about sharing objective facts. I understand that you care about referees and I agree that all information on Wikipedia on refs that is biased and subjective should be deleted and thank you for your work on this. However I believe that this is a clear mistake - so why delete it? It's objective. Yes, it may not be favourable for the ref, but it is the truth isn't it?

I hope to discuss this issue, so that a true version of what happened can appear on the wiki page of the ref.

Cheers, Miki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.134.171.92 (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. In your opinion, as you see it, it's the truth. But that's not objective at all is it? If it were, we would both be happy to see it included, right now. However, Wikipedia is all about providing references for anything added to articles, especially of a controversial nature, and especially in biographies of living persons to avoid slander/libel. Merely lumping in odd clearly biased comments based on personal observation ("I was watching the match") is not good enough.


 * I didn't personally see the match, but I struck the info out because it is blatantly non-neutral, and is unsourced. If it turns out to be as controversial as you seem to think, then I'm sure it will be included in the article eventually, but with proper reportage and sources. An article may state the facts, leaning neither one way nor the other, and leave the reader to decide what is the truth in their view by checking the sources added with the information.


 * Let's see what happens when the details sink into the media stream properly - it's too soon after the event. Please understand that I did not remove anything because I thought it was wrong - just not well enough referenced, that's all. Thanks for your post to my talk page. Ref (chew) (do) 22:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Chris Foy
I am not sure about the information about Mr Foy being an Everton fan. I am a L3 referee a have ARd to Mr Foy twice ad my understanding is that he only supports St Helens rugby team. The only reason he does not referee Everton is because he lives near the ground.

Unless there is a very reliable source, I think this should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.17.191 (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. Toffeeweb is certainly a reliable source, being a prominent supporters' website which goes to the trouble of confirming the claims as to who is definitely a fan, who is an unsubstantiated subject and who has rejected the suggestion altogether. Their list is quite specific about who is and who isn't, so I prefer to believe that the info they put forward is in good faith. Honestly, I would have removed it if I thought it was untrue.


 * The internet reference is a verifiable source for Wikipedia, whereas any information you get personally from Chris Foy when face-to-face is not a verifiable source, and any edits made on the basis of such a reply risk being reverted.


 * Thanks for your message. Ref (chew) (do) 20:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Dorothy Kingsley
Can you clarify your rating of Dorothy Kingsley. You have no idea how hard it was to come up with even THAT much information. What is your objection to my work? EraserGirl (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I have no objections to your work at all. I have rated it as I see it (as I always do). It is an uprating; if you wish to take it to another assessor, please re-submit to Assessment and I will not touch it. I will obviously let someone else give it the once over. For the time being, it has a rating better than the one before.


 * Whenever I assess articles, there is no malice meant towards the editor or their contributions. Thanks. Ref (chew) (do) 20:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, i only saw the down rating. EraserGirl (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: your comment
I responded on my own talk page. If you disagree I'll be open minded to your arguments. Since you were a referee I'm sure you'll agree that emphasizing a single mistake (for which he apologised) in the career of a ref is rather harsh and not NPOV, and not worthy of an encyclopedia article. JACO PLANE  &bull; 2008-04-8 22:33

Herbert Kraus
I did rate this article as start. It has enough information on it to be rated as start-class. I am not aware of any rule that stops unreferenced articles being rated above stub. If one exists please correct me. Dixonsej (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It says: Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following:


 * a particularly useful picture or graphic
 * multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
 * a subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
 * multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article - it has this one

Dixonsej (talk) 10:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgive Me - I was the Vandal
User:Refsworldlee - Please forgive my childishness in vandalizing your talk page. I was the anon IP user that kept blanking your page in a "test" to see how admins would react. You can read about the full undertaking here. Again, I meant you no personal harm or displeasure. Thanks. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Taken to AN/I. Ref (chew) (do) 13:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn, already dealt with at AN/I. Ref (chew) (do)  14:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would especially like to reiterate my apology to you. There's no excuse for my foul language and disruption on your talk page. Please believe that will no longer be fooling around with stupidities and will continue to edit rationally as I have for the past three years. My lapse in judgment was out of foolish curiosity to see what blocking procedures were like under different circumstances. Please forgive me. -- VegitaU (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How can I say "take a hike" without appearing uncivil? Difficult one. Ref (chew) (do) 15:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Driscoll
I need professional help. As the creator and admin of www.bobbydriscoll.net I am expanding and developing the article on Bobby Driscoll according to detailed and verified researches on him. A Bot now repeatedly reverted my additional text passages as vandalism, but which they are definitely not. How to prevent this, or what can be done in order to avoid being "identified" as a vandal? Regards --Bylot (talk) 08:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Guidance on assessing
Hi Ref, thanks for posting a note on my talk page. The guidance is here WikiProject_Biography/Assessment. The criteria guidance for start articles is: "The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but does not provide complete information. Has at least one element of gathered materials, including any one of the following:   * a particularly useful picture or graphic    * multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic    * a subheading that fully treats an element of the topic    * multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to     complete the article

this is only guidance, but clearly does not include a criteria about sources, this requirement starts to come in at B class. I wouldn't take things too seriously though as these are only rough guides. I personally am pretty liberal and try to get articles uprated as high as possible so as to be positive and encourage editors. Very happy to discuss and keep up the good work Tom (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
I'll take that as support. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think ANI was equally frustrating. Asking for guidance at ANI, acting on guidance received and then other admins objecting after the fact to a solidly good faith admin action makes me wonder WTF I'm doing here.  I really appreciate the support. I think I'm due for a wikibreak.   Cheers.   Toddst1 (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Bylot - Bobby Driscoll - Thank you
Hello,

thanks a lot for your precious help. It's good to have someone to address possibly occuring problems or questions, and don't worry: I won't bother or even pester you. I'm writing this article on Bobby with help from an experienced co-writer from Minnesota (the one who wrote the biographic essay on www.bobbydriscoll.net) and who I asked to proofread my drafts and correct especially my punctuation, since I am German (I hope this doesn't mind.) But he's quite a poet and skilled in more narrative than in encyclopedic, so pure factual writing, as I was, before I decided to risk this adventure, called: Wikipedia. That's why so many "peacocks" and "weasels" were/are (still) hidden in the text. And of course feel free to call my attention on such things. Best regards --Bylot (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's not pestering. Anytime you need help, just post to my talk page. Good luck with it. Ref (chew) (do) 15:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Linking to solitary years
Thanks for the clarification. In the article in question, the subject's birth year was linked to 1986 in sports, which clearly isn't right. When MoS fixes were made, the link was removed altogether, which was apparently a mistake, given that a birth date is day, month and year. I put a 1986 in to fill it out, and fixed a couple of other dates in the article. I still don't know why the link was originally like that, but it should be fine now. Giants2008 (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page. Ref (chew) (do) 19:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)