User talk:GregKaye/Archive 1

Talkback

link=User talk::vi:Thảo luận Wikipedia:Guestbook for non-Vietnamese speakers#Population Matters

Hello, GregKaye. You have new messages at [[User talk::vi:Thảo luận Wikipedia:Guestbook for non-Vietnamese speakers#Population Matters|Thảo luận Wikipedia:Guestbook for non-Vietnamese speakers's talk page]].
Message added 10:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

minhhuy ^(talk) 10:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello! Gregkaye I can help you about in the "Population Matters" Chinese Wikipedia entry within my ability. Very pleased to solve the problem for you! Surmoer (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC) (talk:Surmoer)

Thankyou, you are a superstar :) Gregkaye (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

"Population Matters" Translation

Hi there Gregkaye. I am afraid I don't have much spare time recently, but I will try to improve the article nevertheless. -- Petorial (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• That's really appreciated but only as you are able and to your satisfaction. The whole population thing is about people not being put under stress. Its an issue that I am sure that others may also support. Gregkaye (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

w:pt:Population Matters

I'll do some cleanup on the page soon. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 17:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• muitos agradecimentos, elogios companheiro, (mecanizada graças - lol) Gregkaye (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, it seems someone else already fixed the article. The deletion proposal has now been declined. Cheers, Victão Lopes ^Fala! 20:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Victor for all your support. Be well. Gregkaye (talk) 05:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Veda Scott

FYI: The article Veda Scott, which was previously deleted per your vote to do so, has been recreated and is up for deletion again. Your input would be appreciated. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Veda_Scott_(2nd_nomination) Tchaliburton (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

English Rose

English Rose is a dab page, i.e. it's supposed to look like it did before you made your recent edits. If you want to create an article about the concept of women referred to as English Roses, you have to create that article separately and link to it at the dab page. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I've moved and modified the DAB page which is now at English Rose (disambiguation). English Rose is now represented by its central definition:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=english%20rose

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/English-rose

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/English-rose

http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/english-rose

Gregkaye (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no clear primary topic. Very often, English rose just means this. It also refers to the flower (which the female concept was named after), as well as many other things to a greater or lesser degree. Ideally, this should have been discussed. This concept deserves an article, but it's simply not the primary topic. Urban Dictionary is as unreliable a source as you can possibly get, by the way. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

As your message indicates, there already is an article for Tudor rose. Before recent edits the English rose article looked like this. Reference to Tudor rose came, after a second title, on a seventh line of text and reference to the titles central meaning came on an eighth.

The current state of the article is an improvement. It starts with reference to disambiguation and then, on a typical computer screen, it proceeds with information on roses on third and forth lines of text as follows: "The description has a cultural reference to the national flower of England, the rose, and to its long tradition within English symbolism." The new version of the article then gives reference to: "Tudor rose, Red Rose of Lancaster, White Rose of York and Wars of the Roses" all of which will come on the fifth line of text when viewed on a computer screen. Now the article gives more direct description to the primary meanings of the phrase so as to relegate usages in the arts that, likely, make reference to primary meanings to second place. Its a vast improvement.

I suspect that, if someone wrote an article according to a floral description of "English rose", there would be perhaps justified calls for that article to be merged into the main title rose. I think I have given this definition as good referencing as it is going to get. Gregkaye (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I see this has been restored to how it was and the capitalisation fixed. If you now want to suggest that the personal description concept should be the primary topic, then that can be done in the normal way. That's all I was asking. By the way, I am definitely not suggesting that the album, the books or either of the songs are the primary topic – I'm saying there is no clear primary topic. It's not really anything to do with someone's idea of a "central definition". In order to be the primary topic, one topic has to be "much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined, to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term". That includes the flowers and the heraldic symbols. Even though they are not specifically called "English rose", "English rose" is a likely search term for them, particularly among non-British readers, and that has to be taken into account. Also, it's going to be hard to convince people that an article which didn't even exist until yesterday could be the primary topic.

I am confused though, about the subject of the article you've written. If it's just about the personal description, then it shouldn't contain any other topic. But I don't want to criticise that article particularly, that's for another discussion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that Bretonbanquet. I have to take a good share of responsibility for not having a good handle on the disambiguation policy and thought that the use of XX (dis..) pages was more of a trend than it is. All the same I was fairly shocked at the state of the page, which had prime dictionary definitions at the end of the list and album tracks that havent even been released as singles further towards the top. I find the whole situation quite out of step with the way the average person would look at it. Ask a bunch of people what the national flower of England is - I reckon the majority would say rose, most of the rest would say red rose and, perhaps a handful would say Tudor Rose. I did a lot of the roses stuff as much because my Mum likes flowers as to promote some horticultural firms. I had in mind to present the two related topics together which is still my suggestion .. but maybe I will have to find another way to use the roses info :) Gregkaye (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries. The disambiguation page could probably do with restructuring but the ordering probably stemmed from the fact that the Fleetwood Mac album was originally the primary topic (because it was the first to be written) and that the personal description topic had no article, so it got pushed to the bottom. Regarding roses, I think the Tudor rose emblem is often known as the English rose in the US, but American editors would know more about that. I'll keep a watch on the new article and the talk page – other editors might have suggestions and ideas worth considering. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not convinced the article (the one created by Gregkaye) is within the scope of Wikipedia. WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, in particular, is what drew my attention. In its current form, it is pretty much a dictionary entry that has been fluffed with images. Nymf (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

How would you word it? The people mentioned are people who are well associated with the term and the term is part of English culture. I've cited four dictionaries above and I'm sure the description is in roughly the right area. We live in a world where all these people have been complimented for their naturally attractive looks. There's a place for a whole range of types of recognition, including this. Gregkaye (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey! Re: the *Human Overpopulation* dust-up: no worries. I appreciate the apology. Glad to have the entry improved. (Hope this is the correct way to respond...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.240.141 (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Speedball (American)

Hello, GregKaye. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_26#Speedball (American).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

About David Attenborough

I saw your message on ro.wikipedia. Unfortunately, sites like YouTube often have copyright issues. For this reason, we can't allow them in the articles or in the article's talk page. Anyway, next time you can skip automatic translation. Everybody on Romanian Wikipedia knows English. Cheers. --Winter^eu (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I almost forgot. The documentary was really interesting. Thank you for the message. --Winter^eu (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for dropping by :), and for taking an interest It's been a big interest of mine for I guess a lot of reasons. Noroc! I hope that translates. Gregkaye (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It does :D --Winter^eu (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Gregkaye. Unfortunately, these days my spare time is very limited. I can give you a proper answer as early as Wednesday. Thanks, Winter^eu (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

TY for reply

Thanks for your reply, in re: Hum. Sexual. article review. The sources there are in miserable shape, and I believe I was drawn to your work because of a shared commitment to good sourcing. Understand the need for priorities, but I have done all I can (as scholarly, but outside, non-expert). Any time you might wish to give a bit of time, can only help the article. Look to talk for the long list of issues with the sourcing (and consequently, likely the content). Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank-you for your kind comments. I've made my gaffs along the way and will try to be worthy of them :) Gregkaye (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of London images

I've started a discussion about images in the London article at Talk:London#Images in body of article. I'm suggesting we reduce the number of images and that would include some that you've added, so I'd be glad to hear your views. Hope to see you there. NebY (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

PS I'm taking the great liberty of changing a header level above so that your table of contents doesn't show everything after 15 July as a subsection of "Talkback". If this isn't appropriate then please accept my apologies - and do of course revert me at once! NebY (talk) 09:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: Population Matters

I started a Vietnamese translation of the English article. Note that, at the Vietnamese Wikipedia, we tend to keep the native name of an organization unless a Vietnamese name is widely or officially used. Thus the article is named "Population Matters". We have plenty of organization articles with English names, and I've yet to see any indication that users avoid such articles. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 11:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Minh Nguyễn whatever works will be most welcome. Many thanks for your interest. Gregkaye (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

reversals

You're supposed to talk, or give a link. -DePiep (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• as are you, my changes had explanations attached Gregkaye (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

"Mentions" decides? E.g. in [1]? -DePiep (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was thinking more of the Jimmy Carter books. All books are better described as critical of Israel that I can see. Gregkaye (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Which single one of your first edits had an explanation -- at all? [2] -DePiep (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Changing Category:Books critical of Zionism to Category:Books critical of Israel - the books, as far as is visible, fit better in the new category. Gregkaye (talk) 23:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• I declare this change controversial, as you already see. I propose you revert (into pre-situation), and you write a proposal to be discussed. -DePiep (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• How controversial? Do you think that a "Category:Books critical of Israel" does not apply? In which cases? Gregkaye (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• DePiep, re: above questions, please substantiate or else withdraw the declaration. Gregkaye (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

'controversial' as in: the edit is not uncontroversial. So that statement alone is enough to require create consensus before editing. Note that for these pages WP:ARBPIA applies, including 1RR. So I invite you to revert the edits, and start a talk. -DePiep (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Category:Books critical of Zionism was created on 21:51, 3 November 2005 with comment "(started category, with categories)" by User:Morning_star with, as far as I can tell, no consensus discussions being involved. Items have been added into the category that seemed to me to have contents more related to Israel than Zionism and, copying the format of "Category:Books critical of Zionism", I created Category:Books critical of Israel. Instead of doubling content I choose to change the categorisation of books from ...Zionism to ...Israel. I initially placed "Category:Books critical of Israel" into Category:Israel but, on finding an alternative, changed this to Category:Politics of Israel. I have provided cross referencing links between the two categories. In reply to my question how? you replied: "'controversial' as in: the edit is not uncontroversial". I don't see any controversy within my actions. I would argue that there would be more controversy related to the categorisation of Jimmy Carter's writings as "Critical of Zionism". Again I ask How? pinging:DePiep Gregkaye (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The very fact that I disagree and reverted says it is controversial. From there, you are supposed to find consensus in a talk - from the pre-situation. -DePiep (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• DePiep In regard to the Jimmy Carter books, the only controversial thing was your reversal. Gregkaye (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Your level of involvement at Talk:Antisemitism

Looking over the talk page history at Talk:Antisemitism, [3], I see that you are replying to nearly every editor that posts to the page move discussion you started. Can you please consider backing away from the discussion and letting others state their opinions and reasonings? Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 03:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• I started four discussions, one due to a flagrant disregard to Wikipedia guidelines regarding archiving, two due to the poor quality and misuse of citations in the article, three due to a form of article title that is unjustified by any content in Wikipedia guidelines and four perhaps an overreaction to your accusation that one of my clearly intelligible comments was incoherent. I was also the only editor to offer a defense of Israel in the discussion: Are anti-israelites considered anti-semitic? Along the way I have corrected a number of factual inaccuracies while receiving a bit of fair correction myself. I have no regret in regard to my content. At no point have I been involved in misrepresentation of content and have contributed to the veracity of the whole. Gregkaye (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

As noted above, I was referring specifically to the page move discussion. You have nearly as many replies there as all other editors combined. This is a good indication that you should listen more and write less. And yes, that post was and is incoherent in the Paulian sense. It is an outlier even given your extensive history of producing non sequiturs on that talk page. VQuakr (talk) 07:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

If you have arguments to make regarding the topic feel free to make them. However the position that you have so far taken in the discussion already seems strange for someone who declared support. Gregkaye (talk) 08:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You have made exactly one valid argument (that most similarly-titled articles use hyphenation) and diluted it with a bunch of nonsense. I agree with the observation regarding hyphenation and consistency, and reject the nonsense. It is very simple. VQuakr (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This is rich VQuakr for someone whose whole argument depended on red herring and erroneously applied references to "Lady Gaga" and "Guinea pigs". Your use of weasel statements in the discussion has similarly been deplorable.[4]. Worst your long standing insult of incoherence. If you meant it in the Pauline sense (as stated above, with a link that in no way mentions incoherence), why did you not say so, or were you just trying to score points?

Oh, boy. I doubt any further attempts with you are going to be productive, but here's an attempt. Lady Gaga and Guinea pigs are both examples from the policy that you linked. They are therefore relevant - you introduced them. I pointed them out to illustrate how you were incorrect in stating that WP:COMMONNAME applied. You appear to not understand what the terms "red herring" and "weasel word" mean. My observation that your argument was incoherent was not an insult - it was directed at your argument, not at you. I piped the adjective "Paulian" to the article on the phrase "not even wrong," which is commonly attributed to Wolfgang Pauli. In retrospect, simply copying the dictionary definition of incoherent for your reference probably would have been less likely to cause excusable confusion. VQuakr (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

collapse top|Starting with my statement of support, the discussion proceeded as follows..}}

• Support as nominator. The use of Semitism is, intentionally or not, a form of identity theft. Israelis, Jews and Zionists all have strong individual identities as does Judaism. Its one thing to assume a designation that does not solely belong to you. Its another thing to then lessen that name in the process. Gregkaye (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

What? Your justification is incoherent and completely unbased in any Wikipedia policy or guideline. VQuakr (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

VQuakr, although put briefly, everything stated is clearly intelligible. The issue of identity is relevant here with further discussion at Talk:Antisemitism#Identity.

Gregkaye's arguments are utterly incoherent and nonsensical. Jews did not invent the term antisemitism. People who didn't like Jews invented it. The assertion that the use of Semitism is "a form of identity theft" is therefore ludicrous. How can you "steal" something if it isn't you that's taken it? Paul B (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Paul B Sorry for the late reply. If one person takes an object, another person moves the object and others then takes and uses the same object, its still theft. Maybe I needed to have clarified to my initial statement. The use of Semitism, no matter by whom it is done and whether by intention. or not, (is) a form of identity theft. You introduced the word "Steal" in isolation and in quotation marks which was misrepresentation. I said "The use of..." The issue, as far as I am concerned, is not "stealing" but possession. The French writer Ernest Renan used Semite, the Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider used antisemitische Vorurteile (anti-Semitic prejudices), the German journalist Wilhelm Marr is widely credited with coining Antisemitismus, German Wikipedia currently uses de:Judenfeindlichkeit ~Judeophobia. "To thine own self be true" Polonius from Hamlet Act 1 Scene 3, “It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to.” ― W.C. Fields" Gregkaye (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Come to think about it I also think that "incoherent" is a little harsh. Any reader can make their own judgement on what I wrote. Gregkaye (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

|}

You insultingly described my "justification" as "incoherent".

What's your justification for the insult?

Gregkaye (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The word incoherent is a criticism, not an insult. I said it was incoherent for the reasons I gave. I see no point in repeating myself. Please don't talk nonsense. You didn't just say "The use of..." you said theft, which is the same thing as stealing, so don't be dishonest. In any case the analogy is absurd. It is not and never was theft, because there is no loss of anything and there is no ownership of words. I have to say that I find your argument utterly disgusting and I am embarrassed to find myself in agreement with you on this issue, since your motivation is so distasteful. . Paul B (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Paul B no-single group can claim exclusive use of an ancient terminology. My family are the Britons. The name does not apply to anyone else. That would be nonsense. Gregkaye (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, it is not nonsense. Everyone in Britain is a Briton. We use do, of course, use Briton in the older sense when talking about the sub-Roman period, but often alternative spellings or other identifiers are added to avoid confusion (hence "ancient Briton" or "Brython" etc; or even the spelling Breton, when referring to the continental branch of Britons). Trying to "own" the term is both fruitless and, to my mind, displays a desire to control ethnic identity which has very unpleasant associations. Of course Jews are Semites, so you can't steal something you already have. Language does what it does, and inevitably includes ambivalance, polyvalence etc. People use it in the way that it has evolved, because we have no individual choice over usage. Paul B (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Paul Barlow: he knows that already. After all, he piped Britons (Celtic people) to read "Britons" because Briton is a disambiguation page, the first link from which is British people. But of course, just linking to the natural link (the disambig) would completely destroy his own argument. Interestingly, this also fits the 2nd definition of "incoherent" that Greg kindly linked above. VQuakr (talk) 06:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes @Paul Barlow:, I would agree that: a British person in Britain is a Briton. Those are just three of several words that make reference to a common British linguistic root. My point stands. It would be ludicrous for one group to claim sole use of British terminology and yet this is exactly what has happened with the prefixed usage of terminologies with Semitic roots. The inevitabilities of language do not include specific use of misnomers. Anti-Semite, anti-Semitic and anti-Semitism are all forms of misnomer that references a larger group of people in describing issues relating to a smaller group of people. These terminologies all do this with versions of Semitic terminologies that are in common modern day usage with several usages of the word root being involved. "Briton" is a word used in modern contexts. "Semite", "Semitic" and "Semitism" are words that are used in modern contexts. Your argument, as stated above is (in the second sense of the word), incoherent.

Sad to say though, language may inevitably do things when sufficient POV pushing is applied and, looking at loaded replies to the recent move discussions, I think that it is reasonable to suspect that this is exactly what has happened. The British have a principle: "call a spade a spade". Its a principle that I endorse. There is no reason why language should have unnecessary ambivalences or some such. Language is best used to facilitate clear communication. Gregkaye (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It would be ludicrous for one group to claim sole use of British terminology and yet this is exactly what has happened with the prefixed usage of terminologies with Semitic roots. No, it isn't. Jewish people do not control the evolution of the English language or the definition of antisemitism, and it is quite insulting of you to claim otherwise. The inevitabilities of language do not include specific use of misnomers. Patently, demonstrably false. English is rife with, as you say, misnomers (ie, look up the etymology of "apologize.") Antisemitism means prejudice against Jewish people, even though the logical construction of "anti" and "Semite" would apply it to a larger people group. There is no reason why language should have unnecessary ambivalences or some such. Please be reminded that Wikipedia is not a place to promote your ideas. Good luck finding any forum that gives you enough voice to prescriptively control the definitions of words. VQuakr (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Antisemitism → Anti-Semitism : related moves

--jpgordon, Red Slash, User:Arvedui, Paul B, Pluto2012, VQuakr, Bus stop, Fleenier, Emphascore, NebY,

Pinging contributors to Talk:Anti-Semitism#Requested_move to let you know that there is a discussion related to proposed moves of similarly titled pages at Talk:3D_Test_of_Antisemitism#Requested_moves.

Gregkaye (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum reads at its website: "Antisemitism": "The word antisemitism means prejudice against or hatred of Jews." This being the case, there is little reason to title this article "Anti-Semitism". You are in fact not using as precedent the best quality sources. Many more examples exist. Bus stop (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• And every political decision made by the US establishment is right yes? Gregkaye (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of userbox templates

Hi, regarding Template:User still believes in handshake agreements: when you put a {{subst:tfd}} on a template, you should also create an entry on the relevant day's section at WP:TFD. You've not done this at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 September 1; there is more info at WP:TFD#Listing a template - you've only carried out step I.

But this is academic, because it's a userbox, which are not processed at WP:TFD, but at WP:MFD. If you don't want to go through all of that, you can get the template speedy-deleted, under WP:CSD#G7 - just put {{Db-author}} on the template page, and it'll be gone in a few hours at most, rather than the several weeks that MFD seems to take. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• Redrose64, thanks for your direction. I was under the assumption that some content might automatically appear at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 September 1 and was wondering why it wasn't happening. I'm still learning and appreciate you pointing the way. Gregkaye (talk) 06:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Link and heading format

@Anomalocaris:,@Red Slash:,@Emphascore:,@Bus stop:,@NebY:,@Geofferic:,@Lisa:,@Jpgordon:,@Pluto2012:,

Pinging contributors to the discussion Talk:Anti-Semitism#Requested_move_mishandled to ask whether you would want a link placed at the end of Talk:Anti-Semitism#Requested_move so as to link to the new discussion: Talk:3D_Test_of_Antisemitism#Requested moves. How should this be correctly handled?

I would also like to suggest changing the format of the title:

 ==Requested move mishandled==

to a third tier heading as:

 ===Requested move mishandled===

This is both because the discussion directly relates to the content of the requested move and in response to the insertion of the "Requested move mishandled" discussion out of the normal chronological sequence of discussions.

Gregkaye (talk) 07:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye: I think it would be a good idea to place a link at the end of Talk:Anti-Semitism#Requested_move so as to link to the new discussion: Talk:3D_Test_of_Antisemitism#Requested moves. I don't have any suggestions on how to do it. I also agree that it would be good to make the "Requested move mishandled" heading a third-tier heading. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Please do not ping me again. I have zero desire to discuss anything with you in your personal WP space. I'm sure a better place can be found for this discussion. Geofferic ^T•_C✡ 19:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dis may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *"dis", a [[prefix]] changing the meaning of a term to its negative (as in [[disappear]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Prefixes

Please stop adding prefixes that do not have their own article to disambiguation pages. Those pages are meant to list existing Wiki articles that a user might be looking for, not all possible meanings of a term. Also, please do not add additional links to entries that already have a blue link. Each entry should have exactly one blue link. If you intend to keep doing so much editing of disambiguation pages, you should really read through all of MOS:DAB. -- Fyrael (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I also see other issues such as primary topics and punctuation as I undo all of these. Please, please read through MOS:DAB before making any further edits to dab pages. -- Fyrael (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Move review for Anti-Semitism:Requested move

I have asked for a move review, see Wikipedia:Move review#Anti-Semitism, pertaining to Anti-Semitism#Requested move. Because you initiated the discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. IZAK (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks

...on IWBB. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 05:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

ANB discussion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265#Move War at History of the Jews in Nepal, and RFC review that concerns you because you were recently involved with one or more of the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30 (History of the Jews in Nepal), Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#RfC: Should we change article name to 'Judaism in Nepal'?. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think the question is a little moot since the Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#RfC: Should we change article name to 'Judaism in Nepal'? is closed.

All the same I totally agree with reference to a term such as "Jews" in the title and would further approve that all article titles be this straightforward in description. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal I saw "history" as a stretch. There is a seasonally large Jewish presence in Nepal and I have had some great moments trekking with some of these people. This presence is clearly a recent phenomena. The article History of the Jews in Nepal cites a recorded visit in 1898 as a single exception.

Perhaps the strongest argument for the title History of the Jews in Nepal is that of consistency.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)