User talk:Metallurgist/Archive 2010

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Metallurgist! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 317 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Koki Ando - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Manee Singueanphon

A tag has been placed on Manee Singueanphon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hawaii Special Election

Hello. I see you reverted this edit because of vandalism?[1]. There are results being reported [2] and [3]. I dont know how that is vandalism, so I am going to go ahead and revert your edit.

Thanks, America69 (talk) 05:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I get it. Sorry about that.=) Have a great day! America69 (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup

Hi, while I agree 2010 FIFA World Cup is too large and needs some reorganising, I think these types of large changes need to be discussed on the talk page first. A lot of people (including me) look at things like discipline (suspensions, etc.) and should have a chance to discuss first. Please the talk section about reorganization I started earlier on the talk page at Major sections "Tournament" and "Pre-tournament". For now, I restored the Discipline section but left the opening ceremony stuff as is. Thanks, Facts707 (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I am removing the details of the knock-out stage again because it is not required in the general article on the tournament. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not the final decision, but the facts are simple:

1. The article is a general one and you and a few others seem to think it should contain intricate detail
2. There are article that contain the intricate detail that you seek.
3. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's not supposed to be a sports journal or news source.

Logic dictates that the details be kept-out of the general article and included only in the article that has the details. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Walter Görlitz. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Please don't threaten action. It's against the rules. You were informed of that already. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Julia Gillard. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for instructions. Thank you.

Your recent edit to the page Julia Gillard appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. (Huey45 (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC))

I really like the tables you made for the CPAC Straw Poll. I'm in the process of folding that article into the Conservative Political Action Conference main article, so check it out and feel free to discuss the formatting changes on the CPAC talk page. Andrewman327 (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)andrewman327

• Thanks for making some changes. I completely agree that it's too listy. I'm thinking about rewriting the article when I have time, but I'm lacking inspiration on how to make it look better. Feel free to post a better outline on the CPAC talk page and I'll fill it in with content. And it's OK that you hate CPAC, it's an important enough event that everybody with an interest in U.S. politics should know about it. You'll probably like what MotherJones says about CPAC. Andrewman327 (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)andrewman327

Technical question - how do I respond to your message such that you get an indication "new message"

Metallurgist - OK - I am willing to start the "Palestinian immigration into Israel" project on my page. How is it working technically? I think you are more experienced than I am and probably know more wiki techniques. Bbeehvh 19:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Response from Mzk1

Thank you for your response. Did you see what I put on your old page? Do you think this will be useful?

(BTW, did you see my "lost adverb" userbox? No transclusions :-().Mzk1 (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you aware of this one?

. TheThis user does not put two spaces after a full stop.

(Feel free to delete afterwards.) Note that I only list myself as en-4. Because my grammar isn't perfect, plus the joke that my native language is now Yeshivish - alothugh actually, as a second-generation-non-Yiddish-speaker, I don't know that too well, either.Mzk1 (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Hi, regarding your edits to Ayoob Kara, I noticed that you have used Judea and Samaria rather than West Bank in a number of places. Are you aware of the WP:WESTBANK naming convention ? It describes the conditions under which Judea and Samaria can be used rather than West Bank. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I was somewhat aware or that or assumed it was the case, knowing how Wikipedia functions. I felt it was more appropriate to use the term he uses (as far as I can tell). I didnt get to read the whole arbitration, but did anyone mention there that it could be dealt with similar to the British/American English thing: whichever is first OR whatever the bio article subject uses. If all the sources available on something were to say J&S, wouldnt it make more sense to use that? As I said, I fully understand how this works, but felt it was more appropriate to provide his usage.--Metallurgist (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the detailed discussions and haven't read them either but the resulting naming convention doesn't treat J&S and West Bank as synonyms from different dialects apparently because of concerns about neutrality and common usage. It treats West Bank as the standard term that should be used unless specific criteria are met. In this particular article I think the only cases where J&S could be used would be in direct verbatim quotations from sources since it isn't an article about the administrative area itself. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary

Please leave an edit summary when editing articles and do not remove candidates from the infobox without consensus. I reverted an user trying to do the same earlier this week. You may want to comment on talk:Massachusetts gubernatorial election, 2010#RfC - Jill Stein at the RfC related to this issue.--TM 01:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

NYC Meetups

Hi Metallurgist. To get future notices on your talk page about Wikimedia NYC meetups, you can add your name to Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite_list. You can also watchlist Wikipedia_talk:Meetup/NYC and Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC, if you haven't already, to get earlier notice of when a meetup is being talked about. In this case, I don't think the invite-list notices have even gone out, because we've been planning November's meetup rather messily (which is what happens when we leave me in charge of socialization!). Hope to see you at one meetup or another! keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

We've now set the next meetup for this Saturday, Nov 20, and updated details are at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC. Hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 07:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Israeli election articles

Could I ask that you don't add the election infoboxs to these articles? Unless there are only 2-3 candidates/parties, they are inherantly NPOV violations unless you include all parties (and with 10+, I think that would look very, very bad). Besides, I think it's clear enough in the article who won etc. Cheers, Number 57 09:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

PS, also see the thoughts of others on Talk:Israeli legislative election, 2009#Election infobox. Number 57 09:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why you described my edits as "unilateral" given the agreement from other users on the talk page that the infobox is unwarranted. Number 57 18:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

One user is not agreement and the previous discussion had no consensus.--Metallurgist (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

And could you also get rid of all the whitespace you've just added to the articles - the article text doesn't start until the bottom of the infobox if you're using IE. Number 57 18:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I see two editors agreeing that the infobox is not a good addition (and even if there is only one other editor, that means it is not unilateral). Number 57 18:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure about that whitespace. That is strange... Check other election articles with infoboxes and then ask on the Template:Infobox elections talkpage. I dont know the technicalities of that. It may just need fix bunching tags.

I see one editor saying remove, one editor saying its not a POV and probably deserves inclusion elsewhere (which makes no sense because infoboxes only go at the top), and one editor saying it should be there. The previous discussion had no conclusion or consensus. Now we can argue until the sun falls into the sea, or we can work to develop a consensus on the project talkpage. Not trying to insult you, just saying we should stop wasting each others time yapping back and forth here.--Metallurgist (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed them until the issue is resolved - it does not look good to have the text start below what's visible. Number 57 20:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No. You have no grounds to remove them as you were the one to originally remove them and start the dispute instead of seeking a solution. --Metallurgist (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Please just fix the problem you have inserted into the articles instead of just blindly reverting. Number 57 21:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If you would check the other articles and tell me if they have whitespaces also, I can help you more. Dutch 2010 elections and Swedish elections, 2010.

Yes, they both have whitespace issues too. Why are you so insistent on reinserting this into the article before you solve the problem? Coupled with lecturing me using capital letters, I am going to have to refer you to WP:DICK. Number 57 21:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, great! :) Now were getting somewhere. There is something wrong with your browser or the coding of infoboxes. Please go to Template:Infobox election and report this problem. I dont know how the coding works for the infobox, but they will.

If you want to use the template, it's your responsibility to fix it. If you haven't done so in 24 hours, I'll remove the infoboxes again. Number 57 21:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If the same is happening on all electoral pages, it is not my problem. It is either your browser drawing the page incorrectly or the infobox coding is wrong. If you revert it again, it will trigger an admin review. WP:3RR If you are having problems, you have to investigate what is causing it, not delete parts that you dont like.

I'm using IE8, so would suggest that what you're inserting into articles is going to cause problems for a lot of people. By all means report me; hopefully it will draw some attention to your behaviour. Like I said, if you want to use a template, you have to make sure it appears properly. If you can't, don't. Number 57 21:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I dont use IE, so I dont know what the problem looks like. If you are having problems with ALL of the infoboxes, then you have to go to the infobox talkpage and find out why. I cant be the middleman in this because I dont have what you have in front of me. It is not my responsibility unless the Israel pages are the ONLY ones that are screwed up. You have indicated that ALL election pages are screwed up for you. Thus, logically you have to consult with the infobox creator.

Having fixed what you should have done, I am even more bemused by your addition of these infoboxes - on the Israeli legislative election, 1949 article the infobox actually finishes below the results table! Why on earth is the infobox needed when all it does is take up a horrendous amount of space? It's hardly a summary when it take longer to scroll down to read it than the results table... Number 57 11:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:United States presidential election, 2012

Hello, Metallurgist. You have new messages at Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Chris_Christie.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--JayJasper (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Raritan River Railroad mapping

Hi,
You asked a question about railway maps over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Maps task force...
Sorry nobody replied sooner. I doubt many people watch that page. This is a heads up to let you know that there's a reply now, just in case you'd forgotten about the question over the last 4 weeks :-)
bobrayner (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion that may interest you

You may be interested in participating in this discussion on the talk page of Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012. It concerns the issue you raised on the 2012 U.S. election talk page.--JayJasper (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Your kind message

Thank you for writing. I responded on my page, as it makes more sense to me to keep conversations in one place.Mzk1 (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: Saturday, December 4

We meet outside by the trees at 5:00 PM.

Our next Wikipedia NYC Meetup is this weekend on Saturday Dec 4 at Brooklyn Museum during their awesome First Saturdays program, starting at 5 PM.

A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be 'Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying "WikiPop" project, with specially-created Wikipedia articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.

This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)