User talk:Davidwr/Archives/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Your responses to my recent submissions...

Fristly a big thank you for processsing the data submitted. I take note of your comments about my user name. I wasn't happy with it within an hour of signing on! I'd be happy with: GeoffH_112SU in order to reflect my primary motivation for joining Wiki as an author and I will change to it once I feel confortable that all my artifacts here reflect the change too.

Thanks for accepting my RAF Limavady submission, I wrote that after noticing there was no page for it even though there was a calling reference to it and I don't like to see red ink!

My submission for 112 Signals Unit is a different matter however and I would like you to consider my motives for a seperate article versus the one you have suggested, although I will implement your immediate suggestion by adding that one paragraph to RAF Stornoway.

As it is there is both a chronological issue and mistaken issue with certain authors who write about electronic counter-measures in the UK. The chronological issue is that there is a broken history with RAF Stornoway. It formally was disbanded at the end of the second world war and the airfield handed back to the original owners and stayed that way until 1st April 1972 when RAF Strike Command wanted to use the airfield as a forward operating base for their Tornado aircraft. Twelve years earlier however RAF Bomber Command needed a secluded location to house a new classified ECM monitoring building and the civilian-based Stornoway Airport was a natural at which the unit stayed until 1982 when it was decommissioned and closed. RAF Stornoway had a different mission however and it didn't close until 1998, a full 16 years later. Unfortunately I have tracked down 4 different publications who talk about ECM in the north of Scotland and all of them have got it wrong and I would like to get the story correct, particularly as I served there in the early days. Unfortunately there has not been much notability regarding 112SU's mission as it was classified up to earlier this year so it has been difficult for author's to gain the correct perspective which is what I hope to do by having a dedicated article placed about 112SU within Wilipedia.

There are already in existance two other RAF Signals Units that have their own articles published, 90SU and 123SU and in many aspects 112SU's role was considered more important through the Cold War years hence my motivation to see it have it's own article. I would be very happy however to put in all the cross-links to 112SU from RAF Stornoway's article should you reconsider my request. Many thanks, Yours, Geoff Hallett. 112SU Stornoway (talk) 13:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the RAF Signal Unit: Please wait until reliable secondary sources with correct information are published, then use those sources to draft an article. Before submitting it, you may want to ask the folks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history to review it. They may have suggestions about how to merge it or how to help it avoid landing up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Dan Wright (comedian)

The article I deleted via PROD was about a British comedian born 1979, the AFC is about an American comedian born 1990. GiantSnowman 09:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Socking at AfC

I saw your note here and thought you should be aware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Viii007. The accounts are all blocked, so your notice, although well-intentioned, will likely fall on deaf ears.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the investigation, which is why I posted the note. One of the two accounts listed (currently Viii007, but it may change to the other account which might be the sockmaster) will be un-blocked in about 4 weeks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Cool, I just didn't want you to unknowingly waste too much time when you could be doing your usual productive and helpful work :) --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, as someone who, if he put his effort into making FA and GA content, would be eligible for the Valiant Return Triple Crown, if I can encourage Viii007 (talk · contribs) to become an editor in good standing while at the same time protecting the parts of the project that I am involved in from him before he is ready to contribute constructively, I would consider that "productive and helpful work." One of the first major things I did after my ban was lifted in 2007 was to win earn a Golden Wiki for AFC work. I hope Viii007 realizes that if he plays by the rules, he can be a valuable contributor to the project. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As they've been socking since at least July 2012, actively ignoring requests and please such as yours and votestacking AfD's, I would be very surprised if there can be a positive turn-around. That being said, I will certainly be happy to be proven wrong. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

'Kelly McGonigal' draft

I added some detail and have requested review at WP:AFC.Overagainst (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Teamfoureyes (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)National Coney Island Page

Hello,

I see that you are reviewing my National Coney Island Post. I was wondering when the review would be complete and posted to wikipedia as a new article page because it has been a few days since your last edit. If you could get back to me I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks in advance.

MatthewVanitas (talk · contribs) is the one who has it under review. I just made some technical changes. Ask him to move it on his talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback 26 September 2013

Hello, Davidwr. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics.
Message added 14:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SMS ^Talk 14:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Saurabh Choudhary

Saurabh Choudhary was previously deleted as non-notable via PROD. Nothing has changed: the self-promo lady has just recreated it, with exactly the same problems as previously. - Sitush (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

If the person who re-posted it is revealed to be evading a ban and blocked as a result, then you will need to be the one to tag it for G5 speedy deletion or an admin or it won't get deleted because it had substantial edits by another editor (namely, you). If the re-poster isn't blocked or the page isn't speedy-deleted, I plan on asking for a hist-merge with the deleted page (per attribution requirements) AND taking it to AFD unless notability is clearly demonstrated. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Mohamad Said Raslan

Hello,

First off, I'm new to wikipedia.

You did something to my article on Mohamad Said Raslan (I don't know what exactly). You left the comment "needs some more cleanup, needs review for notability but didn't tag it as such." So why did you remove everything and not just tag it for review? (I did not know about tagging for review for notability). What do you mean by "do it right this time"?

Ibnkalb (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit: Okay, if I'm understanding correctly you just moved the page? I still want to know how to "do it right"; I will try to fix the article.

Ibnkalb (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I think there has been a misunderstanding. If you go to Mohamad Said Raslan and click on the "history" link above the body of the article, you will see who made what changes and when they made them. You can compare any two edits in the edit history and see old versions of the article as it used to be. The only edit I made to the article was to add [[Category:Living people]] and remove some "html comments" that were left over from the Article Creation Wizard. I did leave an edit summary that suggested that the article could use some cleanup and that the person might not be notable. I also explicitly said in that edit summary that I did not add "cleanup templates" like {{notability}} to the article. As for "do it right this time" that was an edit summary to my second edit on the article's talk page. I messed up the first time (I typed WPBio instead of WPBiography) so the edit summary was just me venting my frustration at myself for doing it wrong the first time. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

One other technical point: Once you create an article in the main encyclopedia, it ceases to be "yours," it now belongs to the world. Individual edits are "yours" but the article itself is not. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles for more information on "ownership" or rather the "non-ownership" of articles. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Yup, not my article anymore. Ibnkalb (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Sweetsamaira2

... is another sock. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thomas G Cangiano

Hello,

I am new to wikipedia and have recently created an article on Thomas G. Cangiano. I received a message that you proposed a deletion on the article. Can you please provide me with more information as to why this request? I have tried to follow all the guidelines to create this simple article/bio and have reliable links attached to it so I do not have a clear understanding as to what is missing. Thank you.

Sararoubert2013 (talk) 01:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I will answer you on Talk:Thomas G. Cangiano shortly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)