User talk:The wub/archive10

Diane Farrell article (why it should be undeleted)
Following on from our IRC chat...

http://www.farrellforcongress.com/news/index.html is the "official" page that lists some of the major media coverage that Diane Farrell has received, which would indicate that she is newsworthy. The basic point is, she is the major party candidate in one of the most-watched races in the US. Wouldn't it be embarrassing to wake up on November 8, find that she's been elected to Congress and that the balance of power in the US has radically shifted as a result, and to NOT have an existing article in Wikipedia because 11 people decided that she wasn't newsworthy enough in July?

So, aside from the Connecticut newspapers and television stations(which we think are significant in these parts - the Hartford Courant is one of the top 50 papers in the US), some of Farrell's recent media appearances include:

Hardball with Chris Matthews, a (lame) nationally-broadcast news show

The Hill, a Washington, DC political publication

The Washington Post

Newsweek

ABC News (national, not just local)

Human Events Online

Time Magazine

The New York Times (although for CT-4 that's a local paper)

The Financial Times, a UK/ international paper

The Los Angeles Times

US News and World Report

Roll Call (a DC publication)

CNN's The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer

We are now one month from the election, so the rate of coverage is going to become much more intense. This is "one to watch," so it would be bizarre were it to be blacklisted from Wikipedia at this moment. Malangali 18:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, via YouTube, was a long segment on the Jim Lehrer News Hour (national nightly news broadcast) Malangali 20:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks good, I've restored the article. Sorry I didn't get round to this earlier. Now it could use some expansion, and adding the evidence of notability. The Financial Times is particularly good (and what convinced me) since it is international. Also if you check the history there is the original version that was deleted, which might be helpful - . I'll help out if I have time, but I'm pretty busy at the moment, and as I said I know very little about US politics. the wub "?!"  13:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Isn't this a conversation that should be had at WP:DRV, not on an individual talk page? Confused.  Sandy 17:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Of interest I'm sure: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Diane Farrell. Thanks/wangi 18:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks wangi, for notifying me and for your sensible comments. the wub "?!"  18:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

DRV of Diane Farrell
I have posted a DRV regarding the Diane Farrell recreation at Deletion review/Log/2006 October 8. Best, --Aaron 18:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess
You might like to join us at Physics/wip where a total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess. At present we're discussing the lead paragraphs for the new version, and how Physics should be defined. I've posted here because you are on the Physics Project participant list. --MichaelMaggs 08:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Current events link edit
Your edit here: substantially changes the attribution of the elements of the event. The ESPN link was, at the time that it was added, the only article that I'm aware of that was reporting that Lidle was actually in the plane and died in the crash. While I'm sure the other articles have since been updated to reflect this information, the attribution implies what elements of our coverage were sourced from which sites. I appreciate your adding the ESPN piping, though. -Harmil 12:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I did think it must be something like that. However I've never seen individual elements of a story being attributed separately on Current events before, so was just going with normal practice and making the page look consistent. It seems somewhat moot now that other sources are reporting the same thing. the wub "?!"  12:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Category
I see you're deleting the category:pro-choice politicians (per CFD). I'm assuming a consensus has been reached on that subject. Will you also be removing category:pro-life politicians, for the same reason? It appears you have not done so yet. Appraiser 22:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Definitely - see Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 8. Though I probably won't do it myself, I'll leave it and the rest of pro-choice to a bot. I thought I'd make a start on the removals but the servers are playing up and slowing me down. the wub "?!"  22:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Recat not needed
Hi, I see you are recategorizing Occupations by nationality and Nationalities by occupation. All of these have already been recategorized by changing the template. Some categories are duplicated. Instead of changing these to the new category name, it would be better to remove the duplication since it is handled by the template. -- Samuel Wantman 19:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * D'oh! That would be much more sensible. I was confused the first time around since I didn't realise the templates were categorising as well. the wub "?!"  19:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

While you are at it, you could remove the people category as well, (like "Persian people"). This is also redundant, and is often piped incorrectly. -- Samuel Wantman


 * Will do, but it'll have to wait. Somthing's come up, I'll finish this off later tonight or tomorrow. the wub "?!"  20:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:UW
Hi The Wub,

I see looking at the WikiProject user warnings page, that you are a participant in this project. I have recently started an undertaking to harmonise all user page warnings and templates. For this I would like your assistance. I have listed a number of ideas on the project template page here as a first draft. I fully appreciate that as with most editors and admins, that you are fairly busy. Therefore I am not looking for anyone to carry out the actual work, I am willing to do that myself, with help from a number of other RC Patrollers who have come forward. But what I am looking for is your invaluable input, on the draft ideas and also to suggest other ways you believe we may improve the templates. I do however require the services of a couple of administrators to put into effect some of the new templates, as they are currently protected. Please take 5 mins to look through the new templates page, and both the project and templates talk pages and leave any ideas or suggestions that you may have. Best regards Khukri ( talk  .  contribs ) 10:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sysop Day
All the best! --Bhadani 21:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

A happy day to remember another happy day! Randfan 23:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, admin twin... I hope everything is all right, and yeah... one year, huh? Tito xd (?!?) 00:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Judd Winick in Famous Comic Book Readers Category
Hi. What parameters for that category exclude Winick? Does that category exclude professionals who now work in comics? Nightscream 20:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay, I see now, you deleted the entire category. Just out of curiosity, why was it deleted? Nightscream 20:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It was nominated for deletion and there was a consensus in favour of doing so. See Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 20. By the way you can find notes about why a page was deleted by going to the page and clicking the link near the bottom of the notice saying "deletion log". the wub "?!"  10:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Stampede Wrestling alumni category
It was up for deletion and thus deleted. But there is no point in putting past Stampede Wrestling stars in the roster category unless they are actively working for Stampede Wrestling. I feel that you might as well put all alumni pages of all promotions in the their roster category if you are going to do it for one. The alumni page serves as a purpose of telling people who has worked for Stampede Wrestling in the past. Alumni pages are very useful things to have. The sooner people learn that the better. Mr. C.C. 20:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * See Naming conventions (categories) - specifically:
 * Occupation categories should not be divided into "current" or "former" categories. For example, Category:Former child actors and Category:Current Minnesota Twins players should not exist.
 * -- the wub "?!"  11:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser clerk
Please check out my comments at Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Noticeboard. Thanks. Thatcher131 00:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Activity on Talk:Mordecai Richler
As an experienced Wikipedia user with an interest in the topic, would you be kind enough to look into the recent activity on the Talk:Mordecai Richler page? My claim is that Lance made a threat to wholesale delete a section of the article, attempting to hold us hostage to accomplish a goal of his (which I sympathize with though I have not said so), and then he posted to the Talk page the complete text of a copyrighted magazine article and reverted it several times when an editor and I removed it. I think he is relatively new, and hope that a word or two may have a calming effect. Hu 00:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't exactly say I have an interest in the topic, in fact it's about as far outside my areas of expertise as you could get! I only edited the page once, to recategorise it after a decision at CFD. Looks like things have calmed down now, and Bearcat has done a good job. Let me know if you think anything more still needs doing, or if trouble flares up again. the wub "?!"  15:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Concerned
Please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics, and User talk:ChrisGriswold. Looking for advice/suggestions. - jc37 22:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Munich
Would you be interested in helping out atWikiProject Munich? And you don't have to know anything about Munich. Maybe you could help out on bringing Munich-related articles up to Wikipedia Policies and guidlines standards or maybe another area where you could help improve Munich-related articles. Kingjeff 22:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Canadian air marshals
Greetings. I noticed that you exercised your admin rights to deem that my CfR nomination had reached community consensus. It has yet to be renamed. Is this normal? Greenshed 22:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops sorry, I was doing this myself and forgot to finish it off. Thanks for reminding me! the wub "?!"  22:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Playboy Models
I do not understand your category removal for Template:Cyber Girl of the Year, but you seem to be citing a policy from CFD that I can not find. It seems from the note AWB that this may have been a bot edit. I am not sure if the bot is using correct logic here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs)


 * I was not referring to a particular policy, but to a WP:CFD discussion, specifically the one found at Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 14. And no AWB is not a bot, just a piece of software that speeds up making certain edits, every edit is checked by me before being made. the wub "?!"  18:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)