User talk:Op47

Welcome!

Welcome, Op47!

I'm Hersfold, and I noticed that you haven't been welcomed yet, so I thought I'd drop you a note. We do have a lot of users, and are currently working on 6,908,468 articles, so things can be a little intimidating... but don't worry! We love to help out, and we'll try our best to make your stay here as comfortable as possible.
Here are a few links I found useful when I first arrived here:-

Be Bold!
Don't let grumpy users scare you off
Policies, guidelines, and rules
How to create a page, edit a page and write a great article
Who, what, why?
A handy tutorial, and a picture tutorial

You should sign your name on talk pages, discussions and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date. Also, if you don't want to jump right into editing articles right now, why not check out the sandbox? Feel free to make test edits there.

I know it's a lot of information, but there are two more things I recommend you take note of while editing Wikipedia - cite references wherever possible, and avoid allowing personal biases interfere with your editing.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian - I definitely do. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or problems, leave me a message on my talk page, and I'll try my best to help. Otherwise, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We hope you stick around, and make sure you enjoy yourself! Cheers, Hersfold 03:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What to do if you find a copyright violation

I think the difficulty in finding meta documents, be they copyright related or not, is one of the biggest failings of wikipedia and I'm not sure there's a simple solution to it. Personally I like the toolbox idea, given the importance of copyright but firstly I'm not sure how it could be done and second it would probably need community wide consensus. I'll look into it some more. The flow chart one also isn't a bad idea. I think part of the issue here is finding the time to do it. There's barely enough editors working on copyright problems to deal with the problems we get let alone look into this issue. I'm thinking what we may need is a discussion to work out a way forward. I'll think about trying to start one. Dpmuk (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Splits

	The Original Barnstar
	For dealing with the Split requests backlog. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased to see that you have been tackling the Split requests, and also that you are discussing matters with the people who requested the splits - that's very good. I have been working on them for some time now (about two years I think), and it's great to see someone else take an interest. Wikipedia:Splitting, Wikipedia:Article size, Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Content forking are useful guideline to consult when considering a split - as well, of course, as the basics like Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:Notability. In general, when considering a split, bear in mind that there needs to be reliable sources which indicate some form of notability. Often splits haven't been done because the material that has been requested to be split isn't actually notable enough for a stand alone article. It may be that the material is appropriate as part of a parent article, or it may be that the material isn't important enough to be on Wikipedia at all, but nobody has yet got around to removing it. Sometimes it is difficult to know what to do, and I support the notion of you making a decision rather than simply letting matters slip by. I admire people who follow WP:Bold - that's how we make progress; however, we also need to check that we are not simply shuffling around a problem from one area to another. When you split Babes in the Wood murders into multiple articles, for example, some of those articles you created have questionable status - Babes in the Wood murders (Watton, Norfolk), for example, has no sources at all, and Babes in the Wood murders (Pine Grove Furnace) has a cite which doesn't mention the incident, though there do appear to be some sources available, even if not exactly reliable. It's worth considering where exactly to place the material - and if it is to be in a standalone article, to ensure that there is enough material to justify a standalone, and that there are an appropriate amount of reliable sources to establish notability. I'll be happy to work with you on Babes in the Wood murders, looking at how it was and talking through what could be done with the material. I think the comments on the talkpage are worth reading, as the article creator is aware of the problems. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that when I started systematically sorting out the split tag issue that I may have been over enthusiasic and some items perhaps need to be re-visited. I have noticed that removing split tags has caused much less difficulty than splitting as requested. I noticed for instance that you reverted my split of Allers, as an example, and now I am of the view that such articles I would probably just de-tag. At the end of the day, I don't mind being reverted as long as an alternative solution is found. Regarding Babes in the wood murders, I think perhaps we should move the discussion to the talk page of that article. Op47 (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with over enthusiasm at all! I have more of a problem with the apathy and inertia that results in split tags being ignored for years and years. And the nature of the split request is that there isn't an easy solution - some people may (and do) disagree, and sometime mistakes are made. The nature of life is that mistakes are made - I would rather people were bold and made a decision, than do nothing for fear of making a mistake. Mistakes can be undone. The key is being willing to discuss, and to learn from all experiences. Having worked through several hundred split requests I have found that most requests are inappropriate. It seems that the nature of asking for a split in itself shows that people are unsure. And if a request has been lying around for more than 12 months with no action and no support, then it is likely to be inappropriate. However, each request needs to be studied - and some are really quite complex. The solution may not always be a new article - but may be a merge of the contentious material in a more appropriate parent article. Sometimes it is a case of removing or reducing the material. Sometimes a new article is warranted - and that sometimes means finding reliable sources. However, as you are finding, mostly it's a case of removing the tag, and leaving a reason. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have joined in the discussion on Talk:Babes_in_the_Wood_murders#Needs_splitting. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves

I may have been a little unclear - there are non-controversial and controversial page moves. I was referring to an non-controversial move as a "normal" move.

When a page has been discussed for a move before, and has not been moved or people have objected, one can consider it under the guidelines listed here: Wikipedia:Page_move#Before_moving_a_page (in particular items 5 and 6)

Under these circumstances it is best to follow the guidelines on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Basically a move template is created as given in the notes at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_a_single_page_move, Wiki projects (such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland and Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine) are informed, and discussion can then start on if it should be moved and if so where to.

I hope this answers your questions. I am only concerned that the right Wiki projects get notice so that as many people as possible can be made aware of the intended move and hopefully join the discussion.

As a matter of interest, referring to Ukraine as "the ukraine" is not quite correct, similar to saying "the Poland" or "the Russia". Chaosdruid (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC) PS - when searching for wikipedia topics, rather than articles, you should put WP: in the search. For example, to search for move guidelines type "WP:move page" rather than just "move page". Chaosdruid (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting

Hello Silktork,

I see that you have finished the troublesome splits from last year. Very Good. Op47 (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - there were some awkward ones there. I have been wondering for some time now if there should be a system in place for splits the same as for mergers - Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. Often there is no or little discussion so it can be difficult to find consensus, and when acting on a request either to do the split or decline it, there can be objections due to lack of input from others. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your help desk question

To your final question, I would answer no, but for the cricket article click here: User:Op47/August 2010 in sports/Cricket. Then substitute the name of each sport for any other articles you want to create, such as User:Op47/August 2010 in sports/Football.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition of Native American sacred sites in the United States

I moved your comment over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Recognition of Native American sacred sites in the United States found 27 November 2012. This article is someone's coursework. I found it by accident when doing maintenance. It is currently an orphan. Can you use it? if not then I guess it needs to be deleted. Op47 (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems completely notable but would be the scope of WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. I can link other articles to it. -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

NPP

Hi. There is indeed a check list - it's also a fairly comprehensive tutorial. It's quite well known and I'm surprised you were told there wasn't one. It's at WP:NPP. If you need any help patrolling pages, don't hesiate to ask me on my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of pipeline accidents in the United States before 1900

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of List of pipeline accidents in the United States before 1900, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: List of pipeline accidents in the United States. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Nice job for all the contributions you make - I noticed that you put a lot of time into making lists and so forth. Thank you!! SarahStierch (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of film director and cinematographer collaborations

Hello, Op47. You have new messages at Talk:List of film director and cinematographer collaborations.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Barnstar

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For hardwork and dedication in clearing up Split requests. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the remaining talkpages as requested. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for your help..I just don't know what I'm doing, I wasn't trying to create faux notoriety for myself..or delete the speedy deletion header...or any other thing...it all was done completely out of sheer stupidity..and I shall stay far far away from editing wikipedia in future... Thank you.. xox Patricia Wells 19:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

List of hospitals in the Federated States of Micronesia

Hi, here you tagged the page as having no links to other Wikipedia articles. Did you perhaps intend to tag it with {{Underlinked}} or {{Orphan|date=January 2013|few=January 2013}}, or am I just missing something. Best. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback/Please sign your post

Hello, Op47. You have new messages at Jax 0677's talk page.
Message added 13:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dear Op47: You tagged the WisCEL article as an advertisement. I don't have any connection with this group, but I am an educator, so I was able to read through the educational jargon. I have tried to edit the page so that it is more factual and understandable. Would you please check it again and see if you think it is now acceptable? Thanks —Anne Delong (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating List of arcade video games: O, Op47!

Wikipedia editor Mlpearc just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Doesn't seem to be as talked about on the talk page, but it's a good start

To reply, leave a comment on Mlpearc's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating List of arcade video games: S, Op47!

Wikipedia editor Mlpearc just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please add categories.

To reply, leave a comment on Mlpearc's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Re: List of arcade video games

Hello. You have a new message at Mlpearc's talk page. Mlpearc (powwow) 22:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of baronetcies in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom: B

Every page in articlespace has to have at least one category declared directly on the page itself and not transcluded by a template. Wikipedia's system for detecting uncategorized pages is not able to detect artificially transcluded categories, but only the kind that are directly declared — so if there isn't a direct category declaration on the page itself, then there's no way to prevent it being picked up as an uncategorized page (and we can't just leave it there as a permanent fixture of the list, either.)

Also, if you read WP:TEMPLATECAT, you'll see that there are numerous other reasons why using templates to artificially transclude categories onto pages is not recommended in the first place — for instance, if somebody uses the template on a sandbox page, then it becomes impossible to remove that page from the category. The rule is that administration templates may transclude maintenance categories, but a navigational template is not allowed to transclude a content category — content categories are only allowed to be declared directly on the page itself. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hellow SilkTork, I am sorry to trouble you. This year, I have had to remove the same hoax from Nescafé 3 times. Is there a case to be made for having the article protected in some way and if so, who would be the best person to approach? Op47 (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Nescafé article does experience occasional low level unhelpful edits from IP accounts; however, the article also benefits from edits from IP accounts, so blocking all IP accounts from editing the article at this stage would be inappropriate. I have tracked down the IP account responsible and blocked it for three months - see User talk:94.192.35.21. Even though it appears a static account, unused by anyone else, and it has made inappropriate edits a year apart, and also to the Crow article, we don't generally issue long term blocks on IP accounts, especially for such low level disruption, so three months is the most I can dish out at this stage. It is possible that the person behind the account may do it again next year from the same IP account - if so, let me know, and I'll give a longer block. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of symphonies by Robert Schumann for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of symphonies by Robert Schumann is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of symphonies by Robert Schumann until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Herr Beethoven (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Neo ^ and Armenians in Cyprus

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mink may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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:

''[[European Mink|Mustela lutrthe :)]]. The extinct [[sea mink]] is related to the American mink, but was much larger. All three

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Symphony No. 2 (Arnold) 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:

*1955 [[Malcolm Arnold]] and the [[Royal Philharmonic Orchestra]] on [[Philips Records]] NBL5021 (re-released on EMI 382 1462 (Conducted by the composer)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting articles

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I have been trying to split some very long lists e.g. List of arcade video games. When I have seen similar lists, there has been a navigation template at the bottom of the page. I have followed suit. Someone has obviously a different view and moved the template to the top of the page. Since these things take a lot of time and there are a lot to do, I would like to develop some kind of policy/process so that there can be no argument (as far as that's possible). How should one go about this? Op47 (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of arcade video games is the best place to start a discussion; If that fails to go anywhere, then WP:3O and WP:RFC are other options. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Perhaps I should have been clearer above. I know about RfCs for individual articles. The problem is that WP:CLN which is is a guide line gives no guidance on the formatting etc. of nav boxes, but rather it refers to WP:NAV, which is an essay rather than an official guideline. I would like to have a clear guideline/standard for nav boxes. The reason is that at present there are about 100 articles that require to be split up like this. It would be an enourmous pain to have to raise RfCs on each one. How do I go about (e.g.) making WP:NAV policy? Op47 (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this edit is what you refer to: That's not a navbox but rather a customized table of contents (note that the page doesn't have a "true" table of contents any more).

If you want to elevate WP:NAV to a guideline, you should have a look at WP:PROPOSAL, but I wouldn't be surprised if the consensus turned out to be that we don't need to elevate it. Turning it into a policy is bound to fail - not even the Manual of Style itself is a policy.

What I would suggest instead is to discuss the issue at WT:WikiProject Lists, the talk page of the relevant WikiProject. The people over there should know how we commonly format lists, and what has turned out to be consensus in the past. Huon (talk) 13:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of radio broadcast frequency articles

Quite simple, the templates that held spaces for the pages existed long before I decided to fill them in. It's already been decided that radio stations are inherently notable and other frequencies have station lists. Japan IS the only country currently that uses F.M. broadcasting on 76-90Mc. instead of 87/8-108Mc. or 65-74Mc. (old OIRT allocation) so 76.5F.M. would only have stations in Japan listed on it. It has as much right to exist as other station lists.Stereorock (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

87.9 exists as 87.9 FM already. 87.9 MHz should redirect to that. I will check it later. Thanks!Stereorock (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arya Stark (A Song of Ice and Fire)

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Arya Stark (A Song of Ice and Fire), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://sharetv.com/shows/game_of_thrones/cast/arya_stark.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Smoke testing". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 10:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Signing talk page comments

Op47, please don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages. I added two signatures on Talk:Nutation. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Lycos

Thanks for your advice. But I would like to get the opinion of other editors before escalating to admins. Perhaps you could contribute something to that Talk page? --Macrakis (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arrayán (TV series)

Hi Op47. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Arrayán (TV series), a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, under criterion G5 because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. The creator of this page is not, and was not at the time of the article creation, blocked or banned Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion or proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, the article XERC-AM which you tagged for deletion a few days ago was clearly not a candidate for a speedy deletion. It's important to underline that deletion is not a goal in itself, but a process to weed out bad material from Wikipedia. --Soman (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand why this article "was clearly not a candidate for a speedy deletion". WP:A7 says that an article about an organisation that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant should be speedily deleted. I could not see the claim of importance or significance. If I have missed something then I would like to understand. I am not intrested in deleteing articles per se as you imply, but rather I am intrested in the quality of the encyclopedia and would wish to "weed out bad material from Wikipedia." According to the standards given, that appeared to me to be "bad material" and I therefore chose to ask for it to be weeded out. You would have noted that the originator of the page that Thrduulf was referring to had in fact been banned/blocked at some point for marking pages as reviewed and yet failing to mark the bad ones for speedy deletion. I would therefore, not dare to not mark pages that apparantly come under the criteria for deletion. Op47 (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a rule that all unreferenced material on Wikipedia should be deleted. If you read the available text at XERC-AM, it states that it is a radio station founded in 1946 in the Mexican capital and still operating. On basis of that info, it is clear that it isn't an unambiguous candidate for deletion. Speedy deletions on basis of notability problem are to be reserved for unambiguous cases. If you are in doubt, PROD and AfD are the apt templates. Candidates for speedy deletion for lack of notability would be applied for clearly frivolous entities. --Soman (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad unreferenced material is not to be removed. If that were the case then there would be very little left. The check list on WP:New Pages Patrol says that if a page meets a criteria for speedy deletion then mark the page for speedy deletion. I did read the material available and I saw 67 stations in Mexico(many red links), all identified only by call sign. I saw no indication as to why this radio station was notable among this 67. A search on a well known search engine gave nothing either. I am sorry, but I was in no doubt that this was a "frivilous" entry. I may be mistaken, but I do not see why it should be clear. Is it that anything in the Mexican capital is notable? Is it that any firm started in 1946 is notable? Is it tha fact that its a radio station? More importantly, the way I did things there was a second opinion. If I just let a bad article through, then there is no way to know. Op47 (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon, My user is User:Mminetti Please do not delete my Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority page as I was only doing the test message in my sandbox and I was testing my user name switch by using the move command. My page should not be removed, as I have very little work left on the page and am close to moving it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.14.164.3 (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of split discussion at Organized crime in Chicago

Hello. Thank you for your contributions. I am an active member of WP:CHICAGO. I noticed you recently closed the split discussion at Organized crime in Chicago with the reason "No support for split." However, the discussion did include some support for a split. The discussion was closed with only the view of one editor, the editor who started the discussion, who clearly favors the split. I would respectfully request the closure be backed out and the template restored. Once the discussion is open I would like to add some addition thoughts and try again to foster broader discussion and consensus on this problematic page. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take to talk:Organized crime in Chicago Op47 (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign Ligue 1 players

Hi. If I hadn't realised that ligue is a French word, I would not have known immediately that these lists concern French football. Perhaps it might be an idea to include the country, France, early on in the introduction/lead. regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Template:Stub to tagged stubs

Please stop adding {{stub}} to articles alreadyt containing stub tags (any te4mplate aendifng with "-stub". It serves no purpose - {{stub}} is intended to be replaced by a better stub tag, and in these cases, it's already there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thank you for the advice. I am still new and doing my best to learn. The reasson I tagged the page again was the original tag is from august 2013. I tought I should remind the author but if its perferable to only have one kind of tag at a moment I will not tag thesame tag on thesame page. If you notice anything more please let me know as I said I am doing my best to learn.

Stepojevac (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your question at the Help desk

	Hello Op47. Replies have been posted to your question at the Help desk. If the problem is solved, please place {{Resolved\|1=~~~~}} at the top of the section. Thank you!
	Message added on 21:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{helpdeskreply}} template.

Nomination of List of Mad issues (1952–59) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Mad issues (1952–59) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mad issues (1952–59) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gloss • talk 03:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copy Help page discussion for reference

Appealing results of discussions

If someone closes a discussion and you don't agree with their concensus, who should you appeal to? (assuming the discussion with the editor doesn't achieve the result you were hoping for) Op47 (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Op47 - Challenging a closing lists where editors can have a close reviewed. If you are referring to this close, the split request was posted 6 July 2013, there was only one reply, and you closed the discussion 10 January 2014 as "No support to split page." There was no consensus to split and closing the discussion had the benefit of removing the split tag from the article.[1] -- Jreferee (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Odd Tag on Heimskr

Excuse me, Op47, but I don't think it matters if redirects are linked to. These rules only apply to regular articles, I believe. Also, the redirect is already up for deletion, and there is really no need to review it at the present time. Please take this into consideration. Nedgreiner 03:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transparency International India

Hello, regarding Transparency International India. It's not eligible for speedy deletion because it was created before Iraag (talk · contribs) was blocked, so to qualify, the edit must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block does not qualify. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2014 Atlantic hurricane season may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s and 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:

{{TC stats cyclone3|cat=cat1|name=Bertha|dates=August 1 – August 6|max-winds=80 (
and Caicos Islands]], [[The Bahamas]], [[Atlantic Canada]], [[Uk]]|damage=Unknown|deaths=1<ref>>{{cite news|url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2721069/Bertha-s-blast-Remnants-hurricane-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: England national football team results (1872–99)

Hello Op47. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of England national football team results (1872–99), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. Good afternoon (talk) 13:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. --Good afternoon (talk) 01:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC United States same-sex marriage map

I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas: RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:List of albums containing a hidden track Header

Template:List of albums containing a hidden track Header has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. GoingBatty (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

City Creek Centre Controversy

Following your recent quires with the City Creek Center article, I would like to make the appropriate changes you feel necessary. Is your concern with the small 'public sentiment' paragraph or another source that has been removed? I rewrote the entire article, a while back however, it was mentioned that there was controversy however; I was advised to remove that because it was said to be a 'not notable' attack on the development with no reliable sources. I was forced remove it (I am not sure if that info deleted is what you are talking about), nevertheless if you give me the sources I would be more than happy to to put it in the article. thanks again Wrightie99 (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Moti Nagar (Hyderabad)

A tag has been placed on Moti Nagar (Hyderabad) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

it lacks any citations, and is probably a hoax

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. QualityEncyclopedia (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 10 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the 2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD incident page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Karymshina

Hello! Your submission of Karymshina at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Radar imaging

An article that you have been involved in editing, Radar imaging , has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Pierre cb (talk) 12:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Solastalgia and Glenn Albrecht

I note your change (2011/12) where you felt that the Solastalgia article should not be merged into Glenn Albrecht, because Glenn Albrecht was not notable enough for that. I'm confused as my first impulse today was to start proposing that same merge. Do you remember why the reverse merge wasn't done/proposed/started?

It really looks to me like this is barely worth one article much less two. As you say he's notable only for the word and stance, and the word's notability is so far still connected with his "I like it and I coined it". The passage of time has not improved that impression. Rather, he seems to be in further ferment, so he and his words need a solution. How do you still feel about merging these two 'articles'? Shenme (talk) 04:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shenme, It is too long ago to remember why I did not merge the articles. Probably, I was not bold enough. I think we should keep Solastalgia and merge Glenn Albrecht because judging by the article, Albrecht is mainly notable for inventing the word. Op47 (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Eyjafjallajökull 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VEI

VEI is for eruptions, not volcanoes: see the definition. 86.134.138.217 (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The category is for volcanoes, not eruptions. See the category Category:VEI-8 volcanoes for example. Op47 (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Relationship of Luminous Flux to Luminous Intensity

A tag has been placed on Template:Relationship of Luminous Flux to Luminous Intensity requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an unambiguous misrepresentation of established policy.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wootton Bassett Spad

Hi there, you just altered an edit I made over the driver's actions. I don't want to get into an edit war with you over this.

There are two fundamental issues that need to be hammered home about this SPAD;

1) In order to prevent the train stopping after an AWS brake demand, the driver released the brakes by isolating the AWS. (WCR traincrew had a history of performing this dangerous and forbidden procedure).

2) Isolating the AWS ALSO isolates the TPWS (because they share a master control unit)

Ok so you've altered He overrode the AWS brake demand to He isolated the AWS using the isolating cocks used for maintenance.

I can see your point, you've taken the literal path but it doesn't explain to the reader why.

What I suggest incorporates both ...He released the brakes by operating the AWS isolating cock

Will we be able to reach agreement/compromise on this ? Cheers, Dr Sludge (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mount St. Helens

Recently added Mount St. Helens back to Plinian eruptions, but then saw you had removed it. It seems like you know something about the subject - do we have a source for MSH as a non-Plinian eruption?, or that a Plinian eruption cannot involve or be precipitated by a sector collapse? All I can find is sources calling it Plinian, but haven't looked very hard at all. If there is a good source for that and we remove it again, it may be helpful to add some material to both the MSH article and to the volcanic eruptions articles for the sake of clarifying what's what. MSH is, after all, the best-known eruption in a major contributor country, is commonly labelled as Plinian, and will continue to come up. 65.188.193.250 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]