User talk:Joe Roe/Archives/2011

Speedy deletion nomination of Borkulator

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Borkulator, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Feezo (Talk) 19:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to template an established user, but I'm curious as to why you as an established user would create a hoax. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, you know, just on the off chance it would slip through... —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 07:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Joe Roe. You have new messages at Dimadick's talk page.
Message added 21:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Clarifications Codrin.B (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sherlock (TV series)

Hello. Just to explain why someone has removed the wikilinks you installed into Sherlock characters. At the moment, Moffat have given us those names as "clues". It is not yet certain if the 'hound' refers to The Hound of the Baskervilles. Moffat could may well be misleading us, and, per MOS:QUOTE#Linking, we are misleading the reader by turning Moffat's clues into definite fact. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see my response on the article's talk page. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 12:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Akuntsu

Materialscientist (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

WP Indigenous peoples of the Americas

Hey Joey, if you are interested, we recently created the Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

DYK for Indigenous Territory

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Great article! Thanks for your hard work. Savidan 17:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 19:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Corded ware culture

Good job in curbing some rather unscientific tabloid sensationalism ;) There's probably undue weight put in the matter now in that paragraph, but it's waay better than it was! - Alison ^❤ 21:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and yeah – there probably is. It can be pared down in a few months when the facts come out and people stop coming to the article after reading newspaper stories though. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 06:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Marilyn's Cross

Hey, Joey. Thanks for the clean up on Marilyn's Cross. Looks great!

LMcCormick (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, it's a pleasure to see such a well-formed article at AfC. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 18:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

John Cody

Hey, thanks for the feedback. Appreciate that. I think I will add a photo and perhaps a couple more references and then submit it for DYK as you suggested.

PS. I'm new at this, not sure if this is the appropriate area to respond to your comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billcallahan (talk • contribs) 00:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. You could have responded here or on your talk page, it doesn't really matter. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 07:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Fadhel Jaïbi

Hi Joe, the autobiaphies are translations for what already exists in French and Arabic on Wikipedia and the same information is on theatre-coemporain.net. Could you please help? Thanks Aminazah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aminazah (talk • contribs) 01:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Fadhel Jaïbi: Born in 1945- playwright, film and theater director, director of theater training programs both in Tunisia and abroad. He studied Performing Arts in France (1967-72). He directed 3 films and over 20 plays. Most of his acclaimed works include Comedia (1991), Familia (1993), Les Amoureux du Café Désert (The Lovers of the deserted Café, 1995). He co-founded the Theater of Gafsa in 1972, the New Theater in 1976, and Familia Productions in 1994. Jaïbi has succeeded to make his mark as a dramatist and director in Tunisian/Arabic contemporary theater. The plays that he either wrote or directed provide valuable depth when considering socio-political trends. Without considering the list of themes as exhaustive in any sense, Jaïbi’s texts propose to examine all the conflicts of class, gender and language and address how they are played out on stage. The reception of his productions in Tunisia, Paris, Germany, Jordan, Lebanon, Argentina, the United States, and Tokyo, to name a few, encourage cross-cultural intermingling of all sorts, including artistic. The crux of his theatre is never straightforward. An analysis of any of his plays arouses all kinds of controversies that pertain to the Tunisian people making the crucial connections between the local and global context. His plays continue to shine aesthetically and therefore attract audiences numbering in the thousands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aminazah (talk • contribs) 01:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

theatre-coemporain.net is an acceptable source, just be sure to use inline citations and include the specific page where the information is from. If you're directly translating an article from a Wikipedia article in another language, there are a few special procedures to follow so that the authors of the original article are properly credited. Hope that helps. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 10:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Joey Roe, did you have a look on the page????

Sir! you said: "This article (Boubaker Polynomials) has been deleted .... As this appears to be taken from an old, deleted version of that article, via a user's subpage, and is therefore missing a proper page history, ...."

The version you denied conatains 22 third party, independent, verifiable and academic sources, … how can you say OLD version?? it contains some sources (Book, Encyclopedia appearing in 2011 ,... old??

Please cordially and kindly clear this! Sincerely Dariocuccio (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The three-year old cleanup tags on a supposedly newly created article were a bit of a giveaway that the article still contained substantial text from the deleted page at Boubaker polynomials. I purposely did not list notability, verifiability, etc. as reasons for declining, because quite frankly I can't make head or tail of the subject matter. My reason for declining was, very specifically, that AfC is not the place to recreate controversial deleted articles on highly specialised topics. I left a note at WikiProject Maths about the submission, so you might work with someone there (more knowledgeable than me) to recreate the article or, like I said, you should take it to deletion review.

The fact that this was message was left by a newly created account, the submission by an IP with no other edits, but the article clearly using recently written material by User:Rirunmot makes me think you know this very well, and are using sock puppetry to deliberately slip the article past the usual new page checks. And it's not appreciated. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 14:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sir, I was asked by this user to propose the page, is this forbidden?, in not, please help by just having a look on the references ann/or tell me the best way to re-establish this page, if appropriate of course . thanks. Dariocuccio (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Not forbidden, but somewhat frowned upon. You should be aware that by recreating the page you're reopening a four year old debate. Unless you can show that the arguments in the debate that led to the original article being deleted have been taking into account, the article would just be deleted again if I created it for you. The best way to proceed would be for Rirunmot to ask other knowledgeable editors (like those at WikiProject Maths) to look over his new draft of the article to make sure it's suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 14:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh Thanks. and excuse any inconvenience.Dariocuccio (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. And sorry if I was brash, I can see now you weren't deliberately trying to misuse AfC. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 14:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Mucking

Thanks for reviewing. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Hilbert

Hi Joey! Thanks for your work on the Stephen Hilbert article. I have a question for you. You removed Hilbert's middle initial from the article title. That's fine, but I want to point out that the Wikipedia article for James H. Bramble, who co-authored the Bramble-Hilbert Lemma, does contain Bramble's middle initial in the article title. I feel that for the sake of consistency, it would be good to either put Hilbert's middle initial back or remove Bramble's middle initial in the article titles. What do you think? I really appreciate your help; I've never created a Wikipedia article before! 68.239.177.117 (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I didn't notice that. I generally like to use just plain firstname lastname, as the simplest form, unless the middle initial is needed for disambiguation. But as far as I know there's no policy or guideline on that, so I'll just put it back how it was. At the end of the day it doesn't make much difference, since whether you type in Stephen R. Hilbert or Stephen Hilbert you get the same article (because of redirects).

It's a nice article by the way, quite above the standard we usually see at AfC. If you expanded it some more you could submit it to DYK and get a mention on the main page.   jroe ^tk_cb  21:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. Thank you for explaining! By the way, if you aren't too busy, might you be able to give me some feedback on the way I've formatted entries in the Awards and honors section and in the Publications section? I browsed through several articles on Wikipedia to see if I could extract a generally accepted formula (i.e. order of pieces of information like name, publication year, publisher, etc.). However, I've noticed that in some articles (such as Carl Sagan), the entries within the same article are not always consistent with one another. I imagine Wikipedia does have guidelines for this, but I haven't been able to find them. I'll really appreciate any help you can offer! 68.239.177.117 (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

There isn't, as far as I know, and that's why you get inconsistency between/inside articles. There's a point where the guidelines sacrifice consistency in favour of simply not heaping too many instructions on people, I think. So yeah, what you've done looks absolutely fine to me. You could have used {{cite book}} to format the publications – it wouldn't look much different, but it's slightly easier.   jroe ^tk_cb  06:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I didn't know about {{cite book}}. I'll try it out in a little while. 68.239.177.117 (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Terry Hogan

hi joey

thanks for your review. I have an article about terry hogan (who is my father) coming out in You magazine mail on sunday on 15/5/2011 As you can tell I am brand new to wiki. Is there any way I can post my dad's obituary online, as a point of reference for readers? fond wishes karen Hogan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kareenza (talk • contribs) 18:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Karen. I'm by no means an expert, but I would think it would be difficult. The copyright will definitely belong to either the Guardian or the journalist who wrote the obituary, so Wikipedia is out of the question, as contributions have to be released under a certain license, and even if that was possible Wikipedia doesn't accept full copies of sources. I don't know of anywhere else you would be able to put it, really, if the Guardian haven't archived it online themselves. You could use the obituary and your magazine article as references in a (freshly written) encyclopaedia entry about your father for Wikipedia, though. Hope that helps a little bit.   jroe ^tk_cb  19:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

thank you, you are very sweet, you can find me on facebook/kareenzza. I am a journalist and should know more.....doh. When my article is published could I ask your advice again about trying to get it on site. Anyway, thanks j. karen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kareenza (talk • contribs) 19:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course, I'd be happy to help as much as I can.   jroe ^tk_cb  19:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

one last thing joey, is that, if you do a search for the first line of the obituary ' Final curtain for robber who got away' it comes up as a reference to a couple of aricles, although the full obituary cannot be seen. Do you have any thoughts on that...fond wishes karen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.161.159 (talk) 05:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep those article use the obituary as a source, that kind of usage is fine.   jroe ^tk_cb  11:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth Regina Love (Queen Elizabeth II)

Hi Joey Thank you for your review. I've read the pages about sources and notability. There have been no newpaper articles etc., and replies to correspondence are mostly private. There is the correspondence with Buckingham Palace http://www.elizabethreginalove.com/correspondence.html, is this a primary or secondary source? Most of the material on the website is original and would be excluded from an article (time- and context-specific interventions and contributions to a wide variety of events). Could you please advise if there is a way forward other than deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.105.254.68 (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

That would be a primary source, but also not a reliable source, since it is self-published. If there aren't any secondary reliable sources then no, there really isn't a way the topic can be covered on Wikipedia.   jroe ^tk_cb  19:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. With regard to the above, what does "Self-published sources as sources on themselves" mean? Is it applicable here, or as a possible contribution to another page? If not how do I delete the page?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.99.236.3 (talk) 06:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It means that, if properly presented, you could use it to source. However, that's only talking about sources insomuch as they're require for verifiability. To establish notability (and therefore for the article to exist) you need significant coverage in third-party reliable sources, secondary or tertiary. So for example, if I were writing about a recent start-up company I would have to use coverage in the independent press to establish its notability, but I could use primary material from their website to source factual information like the date the company was founded or who runs it, because those things are uncontroversial and unlikely to be published elsewhere. Regarding other articles, as a self-published source material on elizabethreginalove.com isn't considered reliable, so I don't see it being useful.

You don't need to delete the page, it will stay archived at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elizabeth Regina Love (Queen Elizabeth II).   jroe ^tk_cb  07:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks once again. If it stays archived could you please remove the "as an example..." comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.99.236.3 (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. The archived page still comes up on a google search. Will it be OK if I continue to develop it? I will add the 'official website' link, and some of the material from our discussion, mindful that the sources requirements will mean that it will not pass the review at this stage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.99.44.183 (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That depends. It's archived in case you want to go back and improve it with the aim of getting it up to standard and having the article created – by all means do that. But Wikipedia is not a webhost, so if you were simply using the page to put up material that you know isn't appropriate for Wikipedia, because it shows up on a google search, it would have to be blanked or deleted. I'll put a template on that makes it clear it's not a Wikipedia article; please leave that on.   jroe ^tk_cb  14:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks once again. It's about getting it up to standard. It's a case that, because it shows up on a google search it cannot be left as it is and needs to be improved, as well as wanting to develop an article. I'll note this on the article. When changes are made and saved does a reviewer review it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.99.44.183 (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You can submit it for review again by adding {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the page. But honestly, it doesn't seem to be a notable organisation.   jroe ^tk_cb  16:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand and take the point about notability and that it is not inherent or inherited, please bear with me. The article has been amended. Is it at this stage more intelligible? (The layout needs improving.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.99.240.51 (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Well not really, "time- and context-specific interventions and contributions to a wide variety of activities" is very vague, and the article still focuses on this strange issue of the logo.   jroe ^tk_cb  20:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

terry hogan

Hi Joey

My article about terry is online now under google from the mail on sunday You magazine- by me Karen Hogan. Can I now directly lift the article that I wrote straight into a wiki article? My other concern is that he has the same name used for Hulk Hogan. If you have time to get back that would be great and I very much appreciate your time. best wishes karen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kareenza (talk • contribs) 00:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to reply, I see you've already gone ahead and started the article. It's looking good. I'll see what I can do to tidy up the formatting so you can get rid of those cleanup tags.  jroe ^tk_cb  18:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Talianki

I just wanted to say how much I liked what you did with the Talianki article. Good choice in breaking the archaeological site article out as a separate piece. I think this is a pattern I'd like to incorporate and recommend for future Cucuteni-Trypillian archaeological sites I plan on someday working on.

For this, and for all your other diligent work (I have noticed!), I'm giving you the Editor's Barnstar. :) --Saukkomies ^talk 16:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For brilliant editing --Saukkomies talk 16:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, thank you very much. My first barnstar! Yes, I think it's generally better to separate sites from the places they're named after. Mainly because I figure people interested in the site don't actually care what postcode it's in or what kind of turnip they grow there now, and conversely people interested in the village/town don't want to be flooded with information about old pots.   jroe ^tk_cb  18:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I definitely think you deserved a Barnstar. :) Glad you liked getting it. --Saukkomies ^talk 22:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Terry Hogan

Thanks Joey, you are an angel. Can it be headed under "Terry Hogan" with a redirection, as Hulk Hogan is under this name. I would love to add pics so will look into your advice but it looks complex. Thank you for being such an expert and such a nice person kKareenza (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ha, I'm no expert, just have a little bit too much time on my hands. I've put a message at the top of Terry Hogan's redirect target, that's probably all we can do, because Hulk Hogan is a lot more well known, even as Terry Hogan (if you google Terry Hogan, for example, he's the one who comes up). I find commons a maze too, but if its your photo you shouldn't have a problem with copyright. joe•roe^t•c 19:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Terry Hogan

It looks great- thank you so much. I have my pics ready so will look on wiki help and try to ignore my chimpanzee iq to see if i can do it. If you are listening I am on radio 4 this sat at 9am on 'saturday live show'. If there is anything I can do for you-pls let me know- I can't rob any banks though ;)Kareenza (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Terry Hogan

I joey- uploaded a pic- Terry Hogan in Athens came back with a note about license, are you able to access it and help me put it in the artcile, it is licensed to me. And then I'll leave you alone befor I drive you mad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kareenza (talk • contribs) 18:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Terry Hogan

Thank you Joey, you really are fab, a bit sorry i can't ask you anything anymore! Take care. xxxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.178.68 (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Haha, glad to help. joe•roe^t•c 19:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Congrats!

Congratulations on earning your Bachelors Degree in Anthropology and Archaeology! Do you have any further education plans? --Saukkomies ^talk 10:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Yes, I'm going on to do a Masters. Most likely on something Tripolye-related, as it happens. joe•roe^t•c 10:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds awesome! I imagine you'd be delighted to get your hands dirty in some dig someplace... I know I certainly would. :) --Saukkomies ^talk 21:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Naturally Occurring living Communities article submission

Hi Joey -

Can we add our definition to the naturally occurring retirement community page? Drltforce (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course. Be bold! joe•roe^t•c 13:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Good Call on the Revert

Joe, I think you did a good thing by reverting that latest edit to the main Cucuteni-Trypillian article, to make sure that the Trypolie label is there in the lead. I'm thinking that perhaps we should also include the Cyrillic for both Trypillia and Trypolie in the lead, what do you think? --Saukkomies ^talk 11:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that's a good idea. Now you mention I'm surprised it wasn't there before. joe•roe^t•c 14:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Misfire

this comment should have been at User talk:Putin99 -- Agathoclea (talk) 10:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It happens sometimes when people put {{AFC submission}} on for someone else and forget to correct the u= parameter. joe•roe^t•c 13:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Re:Akhadachandi Temple/Lokanatha Siva Temple/Arjunesvara Siva Temple

Hello, Joe Roe. You have new messages at Topher385's talk page.
Message added 11:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you for your comments on Talk:Jared Diamond.

Thank you for your comments on Talk:Jared Diamond. (",) 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Mark Patton (archaeologist)

• Hey, saw you deprodded this. I was evaluating the article as a part of Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue, could you think you could take a few minutes and find a few sources for the article? Its an unreferenced BLP and won't survive eventually without sourcing. cheers.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I suppose that wouldn't take too long. I'll do it tomorrow. Lack of sources alone isn't enough reason to delete an article though, is it? Even a BLP? joe•roe^t•c 20:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Its come to that--new BLPs (created after march 18 2010) can be created solely for not having sources after a 10 day period. Older ones will get deleted because they aren't verifiable. I see this has been brought to AFD, but that's still time.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Neolithic package sandbox

Hi Joey, Thanks for your encouragement to start working on the prehistory templates. I'm making a start. Help always appreciated! Just thought I'd ask about your Neolithic package article: There is definitely a need for the topic but (as you note) there is no simple arrival of a package of domesticates, pot, polished stone and monuments across Europe. I would say that the idea of a Neolithic package is pretty outdated now (particularly among Anglo-American archaeologists). Maybe the article should instead focus on the idea of a package as an older archaeological theory most famously advocated by Gordon Childe. I hope I'm not being harsh, I can send you some references if you'd like. Best, PatHadley (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, long time since I touched that draft, I'd forgotten about it. My idea was to have an article covering the spread of agriculture/Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in a general, non-region-specific sense (since it seems to me an interesting and notable topic, but not one that fits comfortably into Mesolithic, Neolithic, Neolithic Revolution, or any of our other existing articles on related topics). So it would include a broad sweep overview of the culture history, the cultural/demic diffusion debate, theories of why farming replaced foraging, and so on. If "Neolithic package" is outdated, then perhaps something like "Neolithisation" or simply "Spread of agriculture" would be a better title? Generally speaking I don't think it's a good idea to devote articles entirely to old/discredited theories (e.g. Old Europe, though I [hope] I've improved that a bit), because there's a high chance someone coming across it without any background knowledge will take it as fact. What do you think?

Either way, references are always useful, assuming I or someone else ever gets around to picking up the idea. joe•roe^t•c 20:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Archaelogy Assessment drive

I'm afraid I don't know if there is a simple way to do it - I've been cut and pasting templates, or manually adding the assessments - hadn't really considered automation. However there is a bot as you have a big backlog that's probably worth investigating - User:TinucherianBot_II that might be able to help (just auto assessing things based on categories or other criteria I think) - but I gather it's been inactive - I'd drop an email to User_talk:Tinucherian (rather than just leave a message on his page) - as he seems not be responding to his page, but is still editting. Good luck. EdwardLane (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Found a category of Bots Category:Autoassessment bots EdwardLane (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm liking the look of dodobot from that list - check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_Maps/Categories for the kind of things it can do - I just scanned all the actual page titles in the category and if they all looked like I'd tag them as one importance (rather than a mixture) I set it to default to tag them at that level of importance.

I think it's going to have taken me an hour or so to have sorted that out - and probably saved me 100 hours of cut and pasteing I've left a few categories unassessed - as it too mixed up. If you find it's all too much I'd think about going that way. :) EdwardLane (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

BRFA

Hi, in case you didn't notice the reply meant that it would leave declined templates there as you requested. Petrb (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, that addresses my concern then. Thanks for the heads up. joe•roe^t•c 23:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Italian Catholic University Federation

About "moved Italian Catholic Undergraduates Federation to Italian Catholic University Federation: I believe this is a better translation",

How much proficient are you about Italian language? That is my mother language. Universitaria refers to Undergraduates, not to Universities. I propose to move again the page to "Italian Catholic Undergraduates Federation" and delete the new page. Do you agree?

Mormegil 87.18.197.110 (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't speak any Italian, this was just the most common translation I found in English-language sources, e.g. [1] [2] [3]. I looked it up because it is strange to use "undergraduates" like that in English. Or perhaps "Italian Catholic Federation of University Students" as used by [4] is better? Anyway, it can be easily moved, it's up to you. joe•roe^t•c 10:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

"Italian Catholic Federation of University Students" can be ok. If you agree, move the page and delete the others. Mormegil 87.19.63.21 (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, it's moved. No need to delete the other pages, they can stay as redirects. joe•roe^t•c 19:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose they are useless. They are both not even either official or authentic or good English translations. Mormegil 87.18.79.7 (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Joe Roe. You have new messages at User talk:DodoBot/Requests.
Message added 04:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 - EdoDodo ^talk 04:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Joe Roe. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/feedback.
Message added 00:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

mabdul 00:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Twitter status message Template

This is a template to generate a direct link to the Twitter status message. You can use this template to navigate directly to the Tweet or to refer someone directly to any Tweet in your wiki. You can use this template freely wherever you need to refer any tweets/twitter users of Twitter#Features for your external references or some other places. --Jenith Michael Raj (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Twitter_status