User talk:Mootros/Archives/2009/October

Robert Bates

Hi, unfortunately we can't link the Belfast Agreement to Bates' release, even though it seems clear that the confidence-building measures I referred to before were impt in his gaining his freedom. So I've had to revert that article to what is verifiable until someone can find a reference to support this hypothesis. Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 23:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I thought it was carefully worded, merely stating the time-scale. Do you think this is not useful? Cheers, Mootros (talk) 12:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, I know exactly where you're coming from and am sympathetic. Clearly Bates' release was very impt in the context of how prisoner releases would fit into the Belfast Agreement. But without any authoritative source, our views are speculation. Let's see, though, if we can't find a source that discusses this point. As to the timescale you mention, it's not really relevant to the article but will become so if we can find the source(s) we're looking for. All the best, Billsmith60 (talk) 09:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Social_informatics

pls check, thanksKatewill (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for awarding me this medal! [[1]] RP459 (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Marwa Elsherbini

Hi, I am not completely sure if what you understood is what I meant to write. But it is just a minor issue, or maybe it is intentional and I did not get it. What the prosecutors are saying is that they found two, not three qualifying features for a muder charge. One feature is that the perpetrator acted perfidiously (heimtueckisch) because he attacked the victims when they did not expect it and could not defend themselves. The other feature they assume is that the perpetrator acted from base motives (niedere Beweggruende).

This "hatred for Muslims and non-Europeans" is a base motive, not a feature explicitely mentioned in art. 211 StGB.

Regards, Yaan (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for good your effort. This was my mistake. I've corrected it. niedere Beweggruende in the sense of Niedertracht is probably best rendered as maliciousness. Nieder as Boese. Now:

“ Prosecutors cited perfidiousness and maliciousness (based on hatred against non-Europeans and Muslims) as qualifying characteristics for the murder charge ”

Or am I still missing the point?

Yours, Mootros (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for the award: User talk:HappyInGeneral#New Section. It makes my day a bit more brighter. Here is a section where I request some advice. Would you be so kind and contribute there? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Done! Thank you for your incredible effort. Mootros (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Persecution of Falun Gong. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Jmundo (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Further, the dispute about neutrality came over from the several related articles, and was covered in discussions in which you had participated. Please don't do that again.- Sinneed 16:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jmundo, thank you for your message. You may have noticed that the article Persecution_of_Falun_Gong was created by SilkTor as a "rough start - cut and paste from History of Falun Gong". I have removed the deletion tag, because there has not been any discussion or dispute about deleting this article. AfDM tags cannot be randomly placed on articles without initiating some form of discussions. If you feel that Persecution_of_Falun_Gong should be deleted please talk about on the article's talk page. Yours, Mootros (talk) 09:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear JSinneed, thank you for your message. I have removed the neutrality tag, because there has not been any discussion about the neutrality of this article. POV tags can neither be randomly placed on articles without initiating a discussions, nor can "dispute about neutrality c[o]me over from the several related articles". If you feel that this article has lack neutrality, be bold and change it or talk about this on its talk page. Yours, Mootros (talk) 09:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Persecution of Falun Gong. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. Do not do this again. There is an AfD open on the deletion of this article. Irbisgreif (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Irbisgreif, thank you for your message. Which discussion? You may have noticed that the article Persecution_of_Falun_Gong was created by SilkTor as a "rough start - cut and paste from History of Falun Gong". I have removed the deletion tag, because there has not been any discussion or dispute about deleting this article. AfDM tags cannot be randomly placed on articles without initiating some form of discussions. If you feel that Persecution_of_Falun_Gong should be deleted please talk about on the article's talk page. Yours, Mootros (talk) 09:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is where it belongs, at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Persecution_of_Falun_Gong. You've been around long enough to know how AfD works. Do not remove that tag again. Irbisgreif (talk) 10:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue removing Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Persecution of Falun Gong, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Stop. Irbisgreif (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! In order to make a proper case, I seems important to me that the documentation about previous discussion should accessible to all users. Mootros (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. In the future, leave removing AfD tags to admins and those who understand the process. The tag contains a big link to the page's AfD discussion, making it easily accessible. Irbisgreif (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think you seem to slightly miss the point what I trying to say. I.e. that discussions foremost happen on the talk page. Prior to placing/ or simultaneously to placing of an AfD. I don't think that has really happened here. Mootros (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not how AfD works. AfD is for any discussion on deletion. If you believe an article should be deleted, you take it to AfD, not “foremost on the talk page”. As an experianced editor, you should know this by now. Irbisgreif (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, point taken. Thanks, Mootros (talk) 10:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

To Mootros,

About 2 weeks ago, I wrote a short piece under TALK--Electronic Health record. I have won 3 awards for my work with the computerized medical record for patient care. Can you explain whatm happened to my work?? Mary Bender —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryeb12345 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

See article talk page.

Chancery Amendment Act 1858

Just wondering what's happening with this. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 11:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I need a few more days. Should be done within a week or so. Mootros (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Queer China, ‘Comrade’ China

Hello Mootros, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I contested the speedy deletion of Queer China, ‘Comrade’ China - a page you tagged - because: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Theleftorium 19:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No problems. Thanks for letting me know. Mootros (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Mira Monte High School

Hello Mootros, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I contested the speedy deletion of Mira Monte High School - a page you tagged - because: A7 does not apply to schools. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Theleftorium 19:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, no problems. Thanks for letting me know. Mootros (talk) 09:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The Anti-Cruelty Society Subpage

Hello Mootros,

Is my page actually up and running or is it still considered a subpage? I hope it is still a subpage because I have not finished editing it yet.

Thanks! Theanticrueltysociety (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello User:Theanticrueltysociety, thanks for contacting me. Yes this is a subpage on your usepage. If you are planning to make this an article, it might in its current stage be deleted. You need to show how this soceity is notable through good citations of external sources that are indetpend form this organisation. Hope this makes sense. Your, Mootros (talk) 09:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mootros! I will do that...and also, after I provide more notable outside sources how do I move my subpage to an article. I looked on the "moving a subpage" but did not find that exact situation. If you could let me know - that would be great! Thanks for your help! Theanticrueltysociety (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Simple, cut the source (press edit in your subpage) and past it into here The Anti-Cruelty_Society. You need to copy-edit your text and merge it wit the existing article. Btw, I've noted you added more citations. Good! But the format is not correct. Have a look at the Manual of Style. Good luck and all the best. Yours, Mootros (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: If you need more help pls let me know.