User talk:PatGallacher/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, PatGallacher/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Infrogmation 17:14, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re: Chitty Chitty Bang Bang

Thanks for your help in reverting the vandalism on this page!  Renaissongsman (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

unknown

thanks for changing the Gerry Adams thing, you changed it right before i did

Cardigan bay

I have removed the launch of this ship again from the 2005 page. Please do not restore, we can't have such minor trivia as the launch of every ship (military or not) in the world or else the page will get ridiculously big. And only including the launch of some English ships makes the page anglo-centric and thus POV.Psychobabble 07:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edmund Hillary

Actually, in the mtns the noun "guide" doesn't imply, or limit to, the verb in the sense i understand you as objecting to; "expert companion" might be a better term.

But your edit points up a source of confusion. For now, after "reverting" from your version to the previous one, i'm going to create a link to a new the "guide" article, tho in the long run we may need to use in fact a

[[Mountain guide|guide]] [[Guide#Mountaineering|guide]]

link to get the right nuance. (What i did here was use "show preview" several times, and then preserve my first draft in the same way i would have if i had saved it before finding out (by the link being blue rather than red) that we already have a "guide" article.)

You've also drawn my attention to the possible need for a disambiguation article (or "dab") to cover Sherpas

• as the ethnic group,
• as the guides you hire (in Nepal, usually ethnic Sherpas) in contrast to the porters (probably also Sherpas, my guess is), and
• as mentors (not usually of Sherpa ethnicity) in other situations (perhaps with implications about things such Sherpas do that typical mentors don't).

If you don't have "Watch this page" set as the default in your Preferences, you might want to go back to the article and click that link; you'll probably find the activity i hope will follow interesting in general, and educational about the WP process.

Thanks for highlighting a problem, even tho i didn't like your (first) solution. Editing boldly doesn't look or always feel efficient, but the results are pretty good.
--Jerzy(t) 18:40, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

Agnes Dunbar 4th Countess of Moray

Redirects from common/likely misspellings (or alternate spellings) are left (when created by Moving pages), or even created, as redirects to help people using the "Go" or "Search" button find the article at the correct location. It also helps prevent people from creating a duplicate article at the misspelling/alternate spelling. For example, note the redirs to Miskito[1] (actually, it should probably have more), or to Mahatma Gandhi[2]. The relevant guideline is here. Niteowlneils 01:02, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Prince Harry

Hi. Please do not vandalize this article (or any other for that matter), or else you may be blocked from further editing. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 02:38, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I mistook you for another editor who added the Nazi comment to the article directly before you edited it. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 16:31, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How to sign

Hi Pat,

I noticed your vote, where you signed as PatGallacher (a page that doesn't exist). Perhaps you're unaware of the easy way to sign: just type ~~~~.

Cheers, dbenbenn | talk 07:01, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Princess Elizabeth of Clarence

Thanks for making the corrections on this page. I had forgotten to include the Duke of York when working out her position in the succession. Astrotrain 19:46, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wee Wee Frees

Sorry, Pat. I thought somebody was taking the piss (pun intended)! I did read on and saw my mistake. Tiles 07:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Duke of Rothesay

Does the law actually say that? I'm making an issue of this because the Duke of Cornwall is given to the son of the reigning monarch, but not necessarily to the heir apparent. I wanted some opinion of whether the Duke of Rothesay was the same. -Acjelen 05:07, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zola Budd

Your edits are helpful for providing better context, and appreciated. Your boldness and poetic license are welcome, as is the NPOVing removal of the word "venom". Good catch; it had barely raised a flag before. However, introduction of "poison chalice", while apparently accurate, may present the same problem as venom did. Thanks for the help. Ombudsman 23:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanunu

The post of Lord Rector has absolutely no international significance. It would be appreciated if you could cease re-inserting Vanunu's election to it into the year pages. Psychobabble 22:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Palestinian: yes, that's what I meant, but couldn't remember it. Thanks. --Red King 16:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Deir Yassin

See http://www.etzel.org.il/english/ac17.htm, http://www.zoa.org/pubs/DeirYassin.htm, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deir_yassin.html, http://www.freeman.org/m_online/may98/bedein.htm, http://www.theraphi.com/da/april/18.html and of course stage five in http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deir_yassin.html. While the loss of non-combatants is regrettable in any war, the fact that the Arabs deliberately hid among civilians, opened fire from within civilian crowds and pretended to be dead and then ambushed Irgun solders (foreshadowing present day events) places the blame for the non-combatant casualites squarely on Arab fighters, not the Irgun. Indeed, a truck with a loudspeaker was deployed to warn Arab civilians of the coming attack (thereby forgoing the advantage of surprise). Irgun fighers were given strict orders to not harm the elderly, woman and children, and took any Arab who surrended prisoner, as opposed to the Arabs who would execute anyone who surrendered to their forces. Arab eyewitnessess claim that there was no massacre, and that the majority of Arab non-combantants were serving in a support role to the Arab forces, and thereby legimate targets. Many Arabs openly admit that the so-called "Deir Yassing" massacre was used as a tool to support invading Arab armies, and not represenation of true fact. I sincerely hope that you will look deeper into this issue, and come to realize that in every war their are innoccents harmed, but in this case everything was done that could reasonably minimize this unfortunate occurrence.

Regards,

MSTCrow 15:32, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Wars of Scottish Independence

Copied from Talk:Wars of Scottish Independence:

I feel this article needs cleanup, for 2 reasons. Firstly, the term First War of Independence is normally used for the Wallace period and Second War of Independence for the Bruce period. I have never seen the term Second War of Independence used for the Balliol wars before. I also suggest creating an article "Disputed Scots Succession of 1290-92" since this is a complex issue, at present information of various accuracy and detail is spread between various articles, this one and biographies of the leading figures. I might do that myself, but before that I ought to check the definitive biography of Bruce. PatGallacher 16:39, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

• Have you done anything further with an article Disputed Scots Succession of 1290-92?
• If so—or if you have any further thoughts about cleanup of this article—please leave comments on either the talk page or the Cleanup Taskforce page for the article.

Thanks - W.Haggett 12:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Common usage

Perhaps you could write an article about common usage and then the dozens of century articles could link to it. --Brunnock 11:41, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

19th century

I would be appreciative if you would participate in the discussion before reverting my edits. --Brunnock 20:42, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

I thought I would have heard from you

Don't let this character Jimbo79 piss you off, describing everything he doesn't like as "vandalism". I will be out of the country for 2 weeks, but when I get back I will take this character on, researching my sources carefully. Do you know anything about John Spencer? PatGallacher 00:40, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)Jimbo79 6 July 2005 02:44 (UTC)

Hornby High School

Hi Pat. I read your comment over at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Hornby high school and wanted to drop you a line. This article has now been added to User:GRider/Schoolwatch and has been marked for improvement. It is no longer the substub that it once was. Bahn Mi 20:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Ian St. John (historian)

Hi there. You recently voted in the VfD for this article. You may have based your vote on mine showing that he was not the author of the book in question. User:Newmhost has done some research which indicates he had at least some involvement with the book. Please do revisit the VfD (and it's talk page) when you have time. -Splash 21:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Catholic Holocaust Conspiracy

That article that you nominated for speedy deletion is one of two such articles by that editor, and is part of a pattern. He also posted an article called Pope's Hitler, which is long and partisan and is also being voted on for deletion. If you have time, could you please visit Requests for comment/Famekeeper? Robert McClenon 11:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Sarah

Nice to see your interest in Sarah. I will try to translate it. Although my Spanish is not native. Are there any other articles you would like to have translated to Spanish, especially about the Philippines or Filipinos? BTW are you into Esperanto?--Jondel 09:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Categories for deletion

I've responded on the talk page at WP:CFD. -- Samuel Wantman 10:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Hi, I see you still haven't added the category, so I added it for you. Just in case you didn't understand Samuel Wantman response, here is a detailed how to. First you find todays date (UTC time) on the Cfd page, click the edit link to the right of that section, much like editing a section of any other article. For JUL 30 the section is here. To add a new category, you can just follow the format that others are using. For this particular entry, it would look like this:

===July 30===
====[[:Category:Women rulers]]====
Your reasons for nomination; deletion, merge, renaming.  ~~~~

You add new entries just below the current date, above all the other entries. I hope that helps in the future. Feel free to ask if you have any further questions. ∞Who?¿? 11:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Hi again. You can remove the usigned tag if you want to sign it. I just make sure that every entry/vote is signed. Wasn't sure if you were coming back to add more or not. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 00:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• I replied to your question on Cfd talk. ∞Who?¿? 00:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikiproject Years Survey

Hi. To get everybody thinking, I've created a survey about Year pages here. I'm telling all the participants of WikiProject Years and everyone else who has shown an interest in year pages or participated in the discussion. If you could check it out it would be appreciated, and tell anyone you think may be interested. - Trevor macinnis 15:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

There are some questions related your q's about the deaths sections.Trevor macinnis

Recent Deaths

I have reverted your massive reformatting of the recent deaths page, which was, IMO, highly inconvenient and cumbersome. Please, please, please discuss such major changes on the article's talk page before implementing them. Thanks, Xoloz 22:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Aspies

Hi, this is the first time I've used a user talk page or guessed how they work. It's not very private or secure, is it?! I got my info on the 3RR rule from the complaints page that jerk Ryan linked to. If protection is asked for, will it be protection with the content left IN, and if not, how long for? So that the haters don't get to win by the page being left their way on an open-ended promise of action forthcoming sometime!

-) Tern Aug 22, 13:22

Hoi Yu Tang

Thanks for tagging this as a speedy. Would you please consider using the specific tags such as {{nn-bio}} or {{db}} when none of the specific tags apply, so that the reason for speedy deletion is explicitly given? I think this is very helpful. DES ^(talk) 15:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Much the same comments apply to Rebecca Mok. Thanks. DES ^(talk) 15:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged causes of Hurricane Katrina

I realize that there were strong feelings on both sides with respect to the outcome of the AfD for this article, now located at Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina. I would like to assure those who expressed concerns about the content, tone, and potential for degradation of this article that I intend for it to continue to exist only as long as is necessary to draw the contributions of fringe theorists away from the more substantial Hurricane Katrina articles. Once interest in this topic dies down, I'll quietly trim and merge this information into the appropriate general-topic articles. In the interim, I will carefully watch this page to prevent it from being abused, and I will continue to work towards making this article NPOV, properly sourced, and useful to those seeking an accurate record of the hysterics that so often follows catastrophe. Cheers. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

See also's to dab pages

Hi Pat, I wouldn't do "See also" sections at the bottom of pages with a link to a disambiguation page. A dab page should never contain more "info" than the actual page of the person, IMHO. If disambiguation is needed (which might be for some of the princesses Victoria you treated that way, but not necessarily all), maybe better to use a standard dab template at the top of the page, something like {{Otheruses2|Princess Victoria}}, or something more adapted to the situation. --Francis Schonken 21:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Scottish Presbyterianism

Hi Pat - I note your excellent work soring out Scottish church categories, but I'm wondering about your 'Smaller Presbyterian Churches in Scotland' one. THere are a numner of Presbyterian churches in Scotland (and have been more historically - I should know I've been writing the articles), but there are not dozens never mind hundreds, and so I don't know that we need a 'smaller' category - as opposed to what? Larger? I might suggest replacing this with a 'Scottish presbyterianism' category, of which 'Church of Scotland' related articles could be a sub-cat. Thoughts? --Doc (?) 16:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep up the great work on these cats! --Doc (?) 13:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Anna Maria of Bavaria (Holy Roman Empress)

I saw you listed this entry for deletion. Since your creation was an honest mistake that's no problem, but I would like to point out that adding disambiguation information like "(Holy Roman Empress)" is only needed when there's more people by the same name, which I think is quite unlikely. If you have to add such a note, please keep it short like "(Emperess)" so it's easy to type. Happy editing! - Mgm|^(talk) 10:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• I can see the need for disambiguation now, though you could still use shorter tags like (Empress), (Arch duchess) and (Dauphiness). Knowing their title is enough to disambiguate and the additional text makes for too much typing. Thanks for the quick response. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• I've replied on the Help desk. If you take a look at some featured articles you know this is not accepted practice. Also see Wikipedia:Captions. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• I don't know how I managed to get this on your talk, but it was actually meant for User:Dismas. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The above comment about captions was intended for me. Mgm just got confused as to which page he was on, I think. Dismas|^(talk) 20:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein → Trial of Saddam Hussein

Hi there. I noticed you moved Saddam Hussein to Trial of Saddam Hussein in order to facilitate forking article content. While admirable, that wasn't the correct way of doing it. You've now essentially lost the history relevant to the Saddam Hussein page.

What I'll do to fix this is as follows:

• Delete Saddam Hussein
• Move Trial of Saddam Hussein back to Saddam Hussein
• Delete the redirect page Trial of Saddam Hussein

At this point, can you then copy the relevant sections of text from Saddam Hussein into the Trial of Saddam Hussein article? Thanks, and please don't be irritated with this nagging - it's a requirement of the GFDL that we've got accurate history lists for article content. 12:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Blocked

Sorry, your blocking seems to have been collateral damage. Your IP seems to be shared, unfortuately with at least one insistent vandal. See 195.92.168.167 (talk · contribs · block log). You were not blocked - your IP was - and unfortunately the system can't distinguish between anons and logged in users att he same IP. --Doc (?) 13:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you drop me a note to confirm I have unblocked you properly. --Doc (?) 13:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the American Civil War

Could you please revisit the discussion, read my comments there and consider changing your vote?

I think two reasons used to delete this are faulty:

1. This list includes information which would be lost if categorized. Categories cannot list the date and manner of death in a organized manner as lists do. Categorizing would lose the info.
2. Wikipedia is not a memorial doesn't apply as that rule is for people who do not deserve an article. These people played major roles in the American Civil War and therefore do not fall under the memorial clause of WP:NOT. They already have articles, and lists listing closely related people should not be deleted because they happen to be dead.

Thanks for your attention. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Minor party MPs list

Ok, that's fine - I'm not going to attempt the whole list in one go, I just wanted to avoid edit conflicts while I muck about experiment with the formatting. sjorford #£@%&$?! 11:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

3RR reports

If you want an admin to act on your report, you do realize that you have to follow the directions on the 3RR page? You have to document the diffs (the original diff, and the 4 reverts), like this: 02:22, 21 November 2005, using the provided template, and place the report ABOVE the "Report new violation" line so the admins will see it. --Calton | Talk 00:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The Emergency

I've responded on Talk:The Emergency. A three mile corridor is credible, but needs a source becuase it is such a seminal point. I've also reverted the incredible anon edit. That also needs a source, though it's a lot less likely that he will find it than you will. --Red King 01:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

RER A

I wanted to drop you a line to let you know I've removed your RfC on RER A -- there's not really a content or policy dispute. Metropolitan appears to be fairly new and may not be aware of what the cleanup tag is used for. I've left a message on their talk page with some explanation and I'll watch the page. Its not a bad idea to try new users there, since they frequently don't realize to look on the article talk page or check edit summaries. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 17:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Irish-Scots : Call for deletion

I see you've put a "call for deletion" tag on this stub.

I'm relatively new to WP, so could you explain this policy, and why you've attached the tag to this stub?

I created the stub, partly because I am Irish-Scots - I noticed that there is a page for Scots Irish, which is different, why not a page for Irish-Scots?

Also, there is a category of Irish-Scots, not created by me, which has about 15-20 names on it, which seems to legitimize having a page for it.

I am happy to accept that the stub is rather poor, and perhaps my "joke" about most Irish-Scots having Celtic F.C. as their main religion is a bit iffy...however, I still think that there should be a page for Irish-Scots, for the reasons given above.

So I'd sooner see the stub improved rather than deleted.

Your comments would be appreciated.

Camillus^(talk) 01:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Further:

I attempted to add my vote for a keep, but was given a message that the log was closed (it was after midnight when I edited - strangely enough, if you go to the edit page, my comment appears, but it doesn't show up on the main page, can you explain to me how you go about voting when it's a different day?)

Anyway, this was my reply to you and the other voter:

• Keep Disagree with both comments above.
• I don't know if you live in Scotland, PatGallacher, but I do, and I know plenty of people who call themselves Irish-Scots, famously of course Billy Connolly and James Connolly. If you know anything about Scottish history then you'll know that in many parts of Scotland there where NO Roman Catholics until the first wave of immigration in the 19th century, when many Irish people came to Scotland to take the jobs of striking workers - which caused a great deal of resentment at the time.
• Without wanting to sound flippant, you only need to go to Celtic Park to see tons of Irish-Scots - why else do they wave all those tricolours? Indeed, Celtic F.C. (and Hibernian F.C) where specifically created to provide recreational facilities for the Irish-Scots.
• Who do you suppose the Ancient Order of Hibernians consists of in Scotland?

• Ulster Scots does NOT address the same population at all. Ulster Scots are people who emigrated from Scotland to Ireland (mostly in the "plantations" of the 16th-17th century, while Irish-Scots are people who emigrated from Ireland to Scotland, mostly in the 19th and 20th centuries. Completely different and distinct.
• You cite the Ulster Scots, Jt, but if you care to look at that page, you'll see the following:
  • "Ulster-Scots" is a term used to refer to the Presbyterians descended from people of Scotland who live in Ulster, Ireland. "Scotch-Irish" is the usual term in the United States; "Scots-Irish" is also used to refer to the same people, and is not to be confused with Irish-Scots, i.e. Irish immigrants to Scotland.

• So obviously the author of that page thinks there is such a thing as Irish-Scots.

• Incidentally, I created the stub, and I recognise that it is rather poor, and needs improved, but not deleted.
• I did not create the category, so there must be someone else who agrees with me.

Camillus^(talk) 02:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Even Further:

Your comment along the lines of how far do you go back etc. in ancestry is rather spurious too.

Look at Ronald Reagan - he gets to be an Irish-American and a Scottish-American....

Like, how far did he have to go?

Camillus^(talk) 03:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Even Furtherer:

I've attempted to make the Irish-Scots site a bit more scholarly....

Camillus^(talk) 10:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Eliyahu Bet-Zuri

Hi. I tried to address your questions in the Talk page of this article. Please let me know if you want any additional information. Thanks. Danny 11:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Andrew de Moray

Pat, I don't mean to be an arse about this, although I can understand that it may come over that way, but you really got on my tits with your first Edit summary "tidy up". It meant nothing, and it was not tidier, for example you removed the necessary piping from the Battle of Dunbar link and you removed basic information from the intro.

I have added back in the additional info you added, but why do you feel that the other changes are necessary.--Mais oui! 07:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for noticing the tag and adding the reference to Owen Oyston.--FloNight 00:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Quote on Johnson Beharry

• "I don't get the chance to present this very often."—Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.

Hi Pat, I noticed this quote quite some time ago, and thought it quite fitting. Recently, I decided to do a search for a source of this quote, and couldn't find anything on it. Since you are the original provider of this quote, I was wondering if you could tell me the source? I figured it would be better to ask you first before I make a general inquiry on Talk:Johnson Beharry. Thanks, Deathphoenix 19:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

After some hunting, is this where you got the quote?

He was told by the Queen: "You're very special". "She said that she doesn't get to present the VC very often," Pte Beharry, of London, said afterwards.

Thanks, Deathphoenix 20:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Why delete creole development?

Hello, Mr. Gallacher. I was wondering why you deleted my section on creole development in creole language. I've based this information off of professional sources, I can assure you it isn't fake. I'll add it back in unless you give me a reason not to.--Ikiroid 20:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)(talk to me here)

the British lineage

What discussion? It takes quite a bit of nerve on your part to just go in and remove all those links without getting a concensus on it. Williamb 03:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the Nat Turner novel was controversial...

...but the Category:Controversial_books category is going to be deleted (not my idea, but I agree). I also happen to think that using catagories to mark some book entries for anything other than author/pub_date/subject is prejudicial, and I would prefer to see that only lists, not categories be maintained. I have created Category:Lists of controversial books to see if that fills the demonstrated need. -- Fplay 22:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Heir to the Japanese Imperial Throne

Hi, I have replied to you here. laug 17:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Dumbarton Burghs and Dumbarton (UK Parliament constituency)

You've reverted my merge of these two pages, with very little explanation other than that you do not see the point. Prior to the edits, the Dumbarton (UK Parliament constituency) page contained information relating to both the pre 1950 and post 1983 constituencies. You have now lost that from the page, without reinstating it on Dumbarton Burghs. You've also lost the additional linking between old and new constituencies that I had added, which would have helped readers to navigate through the maze of boundary changes. If you want to keep the pages separate, then fine, but do try not to throw the baby out with the bath water.--George Burgess 18:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Gordon Smith

I'm not sure if I'll write an article, but I think anyone who scores in the Cup Final deserves his own article, even if it's just a sentence or two. I've done just one article so far, Morton Betts. I've been checking the wikilinks on the FA Cup Final page to ensure that there's no disambiguation for any goalscorer. If necessary, I've edited the disambig. pages for duplicate names, and added (footballer) to the wikilink. Not sure about the Gordon Smith (1954) title. See http://www.soccerbase.com/players_details.sd?playerid=7405 . Any advice/help would be good. Laters! Slumgum 23:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

question for you

at Talk:Arabian camel#Terminology. Note also that all words in animal article names are capitalized per MoS (i.e., even if you can demonstrate that the move to "Arabian Camel" is justified, the article should be at Arabian Camel, not Arabian camel). Cheers, Tomer^talk 03:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Format

I've moved your article to Doron Almog.

It's a question of case, and of quotation marks. See the difference between [[Firstname Lastname]] and [["firstname lastname"]]?

No harm done - this is hust so you know. DS 15:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

delete vs. db

The {{db}} template allows a reason; I fixed your usage of {{delete}} in at least one place (Gordon Harrold Smith, I believe), but you may want to double-check yourself elsewhere/in the future. Cheers on the hard work! -- nae'blis _(talk) 22:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Sarah1.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Sarah1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan 05:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Re "guts"

"rv controversial additions by person who ain't got the guts to use a user name"

By the way Mr. "Gallacher"--doesn't it say on your homepage that you are using a pseudonym and don't want your real name known??

216.194.1.38 02:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

True, but at least I use a consistent user name, not hiding behind an IP address. PatGallacher 11:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you of being a jerk, to wit, Pat Gallacher is a Wikipedian who refuses to disclose his real name. He has contributed to the English, Spanish, and Esperanto versions of Wikipedia. He doesn't like vandalisim.

P.S. vandalism is not spelled "vandalisim", and I am using the same computer, my home PC, that I almost always use when I work on Wikipedia. Maybe it's magical and changes IPs every day to protect me from Irish censors, apologists, their lackeys and fellow travelers, their "useful idiots" (as Lenin put it), et al.

Btw, why don't you try reading some of my edits before mindlessly reverting, you might learn something, and they're not on the Index on Forbidden Books, so you're allowed.

AnnaliviaPlurabelle 19:34, 24 April 2006 (UT)

That's OK -- I suspect you of being a jerk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.99.194 (talk • contribs)

• That's OK -- I suspect you of being Robert Sieger. Do I win a prize? - Ali-oops^✍ 16:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"Sherpa language does not have written form"

This is an interesting statement. Regardless, Tenzin's name is Tibetan, and was given to him by a Lama, who would be literate in Tibetan. The sherpa for the days of the week are identical to those in Tibetan. Sherpa is Tibetan for "Easterner". Have you looked at any of the prayer flags in the Sherpa region? They are covered in.. Tibetan. Seen any of the books read by the Lamas of Sherpa? Tibetan. So, what I am wondering is what you mean by Sherpa language does not have written form, and how it applies to Tenzin Norgay, who was quite possibly born in Tshechu, in Tibet. (20040302)

Record of making dubious claims

You mean claims that you know are true. But you can worm your way out of. -- I heard Sheridan say this. Maybe he did, but provide sources. PatGallacher 01:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Bobby Sands

Could you at least tell me why you revert my edits? The version that you have reverted to is by a banned vandal user:TheMadTim. --Karatekid7 22:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

User:GiollaUidir Has reworded the points that you were previously removing, I think he has done a good job. Are you happy with it now, or is there further changes that you would like to make? --Karatekid7 00:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, for a start I don't like your habit of labelling a lot of changes you happen to dislike as vandalism, this is not the Wikipedia definition, see Wikipedia:Vandalism. PatGallacher 17:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you a politician? You are very good at not answering direct questions. What was it about my edits that you disagreed with? Was it simply because it was me who was editing the page and you thought you would be uncivil to me? Are you happier with User:GiollaUidir new version of the page? --Karatekid7 22:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Prostitution in the Vatican City

The article you created is a logical fallacy (Complete text: "It is not clear whether there is any prostitution in the Vatican City.") This is not an encylopedia article as it provides no meaningful content. Therefore, I have proposed it for speedy deletion. If you disagree with this nomination, you should add the {{hangon}} tag to the article and explain your reasoning on its talk page. Regards, Accurizer 00:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Long talk page

Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 00:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikifying an article

Thanks for helping with the Gilad Shalit article. You appear to have changed the order of the article to list biographical information first, removed the stub status, and left the comment "wikify". As a new user, can you explain to me what this means and where the appropriate guidelines are for this format? (It would perhaps be best to do this on the Gilad Shalit talk page. Thanks! Rest 20:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review - Aristasia

Just a word of advice. It would help if you could offer specific issues with the deletion. Was any process improperly followed? Were there issues that may have been misrepresented or not brought up? There's a general reluctance to overturn decisions, so you'll need to build a case. Fan-1967 16:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Aristasia

Hi there,

For now, your undeletion request for this article has been denied. I am userfying a copy for you to User:PatGallacher/Aristasia. There was a willingness at DRV to allow a thoroughly sourced recreation. If you cite a source for every substantial claim made in the article, and remove those that cannot be sourced, you may then recreate the article in the mainspace. If it is thereafter mistakenly deleted, tell me, and I will ensure the sourced version gets a new, fair hearing. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

World Congress of Esperanto

Hi PatGallacher,

You re-added the 2006 World Congress of Esperanto to the 2006 page. Can you explain why this event is sufficiently notable to appear on Wikipedia's summary of the year? I removed it since it is an annual conference which is attended by only about 2000 people covering a topic which has little or no relevance to most people. I would suggest that the International AIDS Conference is more notable, as are hundreds of other conferences and expositions which aren't included on the 2006 page. -- Pburka 15:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Please cite sources for Fadrique Alfonso of Castile

The article you created, Fadrique Alfonso of Castile, does not cite any sources. As you know, articles without sources are liable to be deleted. As the article creator, I'm certain you have the best access to sources for the claims in the article. Thanks for helping! Captainktainer * Talk 03:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Estella Taylor (nom 2)

You may be intrested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estella Taylor (nom 2) Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 17:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Calton Radio as a source/link

I feel this should be removed from the Hunger Strike articles. The content it links to is neither factual nor objective and is being added by loyalists to push their own POV. What do you think?GiollaUidir 12:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD - Glasgow University Labour Club

An article you have created - Glasgow University Labour Club - has been nominated for deletion. Please contribute to the discussion at:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glasgow University Labour Club

Thanks. --Mais oui! 10:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Medieval Scottish monarchs

I noticed that you protested a while ago against Angus McLellan and Calgacus's efforts to refer to all early medieval Scottish monarchs by Gaelic names. Shortly thereafter, they appear to have moved all the articles to the Gaelic title, as well. Any ideas on how to deal with this? I've commented at the articles formerly known as Talk:Malcolm III of Scotland and Talk:Malcolm II of Scotland (the latter just happening to be the first place I looked when I noticed the change, not realizing earlier discussion at the latter). I'm not sure how to deal with this. The moves are in clear and blatant violation of naming conventions. john k 03:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop this...

How is it neutral to say somone is clearly the best female chess player ever? You cannot have an opinionated position when describing a person. That is like saying George Bush was a better presidential candidate that John Kerry. You can say she was good, everyone agrees but you cannot call her the undisputed best female chess player ever to play chess. Daniel_123 | Talk 18:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ethelweard

Not a hoax, just a badly written article with a bizarre name. Should be either Ælfweard or Ælfweard of Wessex but not Ælfweard of England and certainly not Ethelweard. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Jane Grey

Thanks for noticing and fixing the Henry VIII vs Henry VII error in the Jane Grey article. Someone had messed around with it and I had undone part of their mess but failed to remember that the Roman numeral needed to be changed back. PhD Historian 17:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Margaret, Maid of Norway

The history is now merged by Phil Sandifer (talk • contribs), so there's no need to do any more. I might be an snippy bastard, but I can be helpful when I put my mind to it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Chrysalids

See Talk:The_Chrysalids#Problem_with_latest_edits -- AnonMoos 03:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Irish History

You seem like you have a lot a knowledge with respect Irish history so maybe you would like to comment on the historic basis of this term here Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DownDaRoad (talk • contribs) 20:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

Georgian (disambiguation)

Hi. You might have noticed that I reverted your changes to the Georgian pages. Redirects with the disambiguation suffix are useful, because they separate the intentional incoming links to the page from the accidental ones. See Category:Redirects to disambiguation pages for more information. Also, Proposed deletion is for articles only, not redirects. Redirects can be deleted at Redirects for discussion. Thanks. Khatru2 07:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Arab citizens of Israel

I have partially reverted your edits. This is because that in your edits you introduced many errors. If I made a mistake by doing so, please notify me on my talk page and I'll self-revert, or correct me directly on the article Arab citizens of Israel.Bless sins 14:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Tali Fahima

Why have you reverted my edits to this article. It is well known that Zakaria Zubeidi is the Jenin chief of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. The Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades is considered a terrorist organization by the US Department of State, which would make Zubeidi a terrorist. --PiMaster3 ^talk 01:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade is also recognized as a terrorist organization by the EU, and Canada, which would make it not "americo-centric". I am awaiting your response before I make any further edits. --PiMaster3 ^talk 00:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Charles Kennedy

You reverted my change with the comment "well known fact he is a Catholic". I was cleaning out some of these categories which seem to have been very loosely applied in certain cases. As to your edit, Wikipedia does not operate on "well known facts" but on verifiability. Categories, just like anything else, have to be verifiable. It should be easy enough for you to provide a verifiable reference to Kennedy's practising Catholicism. When this is done, I have no objection to the restoration of the categories. Best wishes, --Guinnog 10:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I do apologise, that was careless of me. Can we have a proper reference that the subject is a practising Catholic. If it is important enough to appear in the article in well-referenced form, then I think we can have the cats back. --Guinnog 11:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I added to Talk:Charles Kennedy and hopefully this settles the matter. Best wishes and thanks for helping to improve the article. --Guinnog 11:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Lynch (disambiguation)

Hi. I have reverted your edit to the above as per this guideline - I am in fact in the process of writing an article on one of the removed notables - I would appreciate your cooperation in this instance. Thanks. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 18:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Wabush/Waknuk question

Pat,

I reinstated the link to Wabush and provided an explanation on the Chrysalids discussion page. I welcome your comments. -- Rydra Wong 00:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Skream

Hi. Yeah, the Ollie Jones thing may have gotten out of hand, but please do not hold me responsible for "Skream" or whoever you said. I don't have a clue who that is.

WikiProject King Arthur

Hey! Just noticed your past interest in King Arthur and wanted to invite you to join WikiProject King Arthur. Just add your name to the list of members in order to join. Basically, we are just grouping together to improve and organize wikiarticles about King Arthur. Wrad 20:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hungarian-Jewish chess player

Hi! I dislike any vandalism too. I have found Category: Hungarian-Jewish chess players with two names: Judit Polgar and Laszlo Szabo, and I have shoked because of lack their names in another more important categories: Hungarian chess players, Jewish chess players, etc. So I have decided to put many other players into a curious category Hungarian-Jewish chess players. Personally, I am against this category which probably was created by a Hungarian nationalist. I think, it will be better to remove category "Hungarian-Jewish chess players" from Wikipedia. Now I am doing it. Best wishes Mibelz, PhD, 18:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Pat but in my opinion "The point about this category was to reduce the categories in some biographies" is not a good idea. In any case, categories: Hungarian chess players, Jewish chess players, Hungarian Jews must to contain all persons, respectively. It is necessary not only for Hungarians. Of course it is possible to add new categories or sub-categories.

By the way, I have written many articles on Hungarian chess players for Wikipedia. Among others, the following persons who are right for a new sub-category Hungarian-Jewish chess players: Ernő Gereben, Imre König, Gyula Kluger, Gyula Makovetz, Joseph Noa, Endre Steiner, Lajos Steiner, etc. Mibelz 19:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Disorder in Category "British chess players"

Now, I am looking at sub-categories "English chess players", "Scottish chess players" and category "British chess players". I have just found a simply disorder. For example, some English chess players, like Joseph Henry Blackburne or Amos Burn, there are in category "British chess players" but not in sub-category "English chess players" (WHY ?). The same situation we can see for Scottish chess players (i.e. James Macrae Aitken or David Forsyth). On the other hand Howard Staunton (English) and John Cochrane (Scottish) there are in both places (by the way, it is a good solution).

Please, give me a reason for disparity between English chess players in the sub-category and other Englishmen in category British chess players. Maybe, it is nationalistic idea to show etnic identity, but why the same two immigrants from Germany: Jacques Mieses and Johannes Zukertort there are in different places ?!

You wrote: "I think you have misunderstood how the Wikipedia category system works." I am afraid, it is an illogical system which works wrong. Mibelz 20:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Derry-Londonderry

Hi Pat, before making further edits, please take a quick look at WP:IMOS. On Wikipedia we use Derry for the city, and Londonderry for the county. Many thanks, « Keith t·e » 11:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. As explained by my fellow editor above we use the convention of Derry for the name of the city, and Londonderry for the name of the county. This is a convention put in place to prevent continuous edit warring by both sides of the political divide over Northern Ireland. Due to the City of Derry calling itself Derry we use Derry for that, and due to there never having been a County Derry we call the county Londonderry as per its official name. This also helps to give a balance to both sides and assists in keeping Wikipedia articles neutral in the continuing political to and fro that accompanies such articles. Your co-operation in this matter is much appreciated. Ben W Bell talk 06:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Es Samu

Hi Pat, I noticed you had wrote an article on the West Bank town of es Samu, you had mentioned it is in the West Bank but not specifically where? If it is town located south of Hebron then you wrote a false statement saying the town was depopulated. However if it is not the one near Hebron then which one is it. I'm only bringing this up because I want to make an aritcle on es-Samu and if this is the wrong as-Samu I cant add to or newly build the article. Thanks. Al Ameer son

I believe the current article is mis-named. The depopulated village near Jerusalem was Imwas, not Samu, which is, as Al Ameer son wrote, near Hebron. Isarig 06:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That is possible, but have you reliable sources for this? I will check Mayhew/Adams again when I get the chance. There were 3 villages depopulated in the triangle, some of them may have been known by different names. To compound the problem there is dispute over the location of the biblical Emmaus. PatGallacher 16:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Douglas Move

Gosh you are quick off the mark. I don't know if you were following the previous arguments about the title of this article, but the problem is that it was not Sir James but his son who was the first "Black Douglas", therefore the title was a misnomer. Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased etc., Sir James Douglas was only ever called the "Black" by the English in his lifetime. He is most well known as Sir James Douglas, but whoops, that is against WP naming guidelines. He was the Lord of Douglas, his father being the first to use such a title on record as Wilelmus dominus de Dufglas, and there are similar for Sir James, so there should be no issue with the move. Regards. Brendandh 23:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:How to move

Double redirects are now fixed by the bot. If you think it needs to be done quicker, sofixit :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

George Douglas, 1st Earl of Ormond

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from George Douglas, 1st Earl of Ormond, which you proposed for deletion, because the page you proposed for deletion was not an article, user page, or user talk page. If you still think the page should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to it, as proposed deletion is only for articles, user pages, and user talk pages. Instead, consider using Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion for this page. In some cases, a speedy deletion criterion may apply. Thanks! Tikiwont 10:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Disturbed by your editing

Pat, I'm rather disturbed by some of your editing. Recently, at the Samaritan article, you reverted in a claim which had been unsourced since February, with the edit summary rv - claim needs citation but should not be dismissed out of hand. Yet several days later in the same article you reverted out another claim which was actually sourced, using the edit summary rv - cautious about accepting this bald statement without further discussion). It appears the only difference between the claims was that you insisted on keeping the unsourced claim because it was negative about Israel, and insisted on removing the sourced claim because it was positive about Israel. Can you provide any plausible explanation for this apparently massive double standard? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

List of premature obituaries

Do you have a source for the Heinz Wolff entry (e.g. a date for the Sun article)? Ben Finn 19:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

John Wyndham

Thanks for your message; see my reply at User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#John_Wyndham. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Clan Fraser

Are you still in dispute over the article? If so, please detail your concerns at Talk:Clan Fraser. If not, I will remove the tag and submit the article for FA review. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 23:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Norman Collier

Pat - hi. The birth date you re-entered for Norman Collier, the famous dodgy-mike comedian, is incorrect; it's not 1934, it's 1925 (which is why I changed it a while ago). But how to convince you that I'm connected with the family and so know these sort of things, when the crappy information given elsewhere on the Internet is simply wrong? Please let me know!

Category rape victims

In the new cat for rape victims it is made clear that no living people should be pout in it so dont do so. I would also point out our job here is not to either stalk or out rape victimsd, we are an encyclopedia and we have to obey blp policies. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Braveheart Edits

Actually, I think your cites regarding the historical accuracy need to be a mite more detailed than than, and verifiable, too. If you are having trouble figuring out how to detail them, as in the discussion page. I am sure we could all help. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Barley debate

Just took a quick look at the link you added to The Wind That Shakes the Barley, and it looks very interesting (though I don't have time to read it in full right now). The only issue I have with it is that you can't tell what it is, because "debate" doesn't tell you who the writer(s) or (re)publisher are or to what website you'd be headed if you clicked. If you could make the wording more specific, I think that would be very helpful. Thanks! --21:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Helena Bonham Carter

Hello, I've noticed that you've commented on the Bonham Carter issue recently and am wondering if you'd care to comment on the (increasingly lengthy) debate going on. Regards, Mad Jack 01:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"Palestinian territories"

You wrote, in editing Hebron, "I thought this term covers west bank and gaza strip". Not in terms of NPOV, it doesn't. On the contrary, it is deeply tendentious, controversial, and, to many, highly offensive. This excerpt, from Palestinian territories#The term "Palestinian territories", says it better than I can:

The term "Palestinian Territories" is controversial since it disregards Israeli claims to the territories. Israeli writer Shmuel Katz has asserted for example that the term "occupied Palestinian lands" is "the common language of Arab anti-Israel propaganda, a part of the Arabs' fictional history, which it has succeeded in disseminating throughout the whole wide world". Katz futher declared that "Impartial groups should not be blind to the fact that there are two sides to the dispute in Palestine, and that Israel rejects absolutely the notion that it is illegally holding 'Palestinian lands'."[1] Similary, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs has written: "It would be far more accurate to describe the West Bank and Gaza Strip as "disputed territories" to which both Israelis and Palestinians have claims. Additionally, UN resolutions that characterize these territories as "Palestinian" clearly undermine the foundations of the peace process for the future".[2]

By these standards, relabelling Hebron and the entire "west bank" as "Palestinian", as you have done, can be viewed as editorially questionable or illegitimate. Hertz1888 23:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Come now friend Hertz1888. You may object to the plural, but not to the singular. I do not have the time to intervene and collaborate on the Hebron article for some weeks due to other obligations, but briefly I would advise here that in this verbal dispute one take due cognizance of the phrase Occupied Palestinian Territory in the INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE's decision of 9 July 2004, No. 131 'LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY.'No one would dispute the right of writers like Shmuel Katz to assert their opinions, but Wikipedia is governed by rules which give priority to primary documents from the UN and International Courts where arbitration of these complex issues are defined and determined. I particularly advise that that document be read (esp.90ff.pp.33ff. And to take note of the wording of the 14 to 1 majority decision which reads:-

By fourteen votes to one,

'Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated, and to repeal or render ineffective forthwith all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, in accordance with paragraph 151 of this Opinion.'

Regardless of challenges by Israel to International law over the Wall, it is wrong to dismiss the use of the words 'Palestinian' 'Occupied Territory' or 'Occupied Palestinian Territory' as violations of NPOV, and 'deeply tendentious, controversial, and, to many, highly offensive' and 'Arab propaganda' since they are standard expressions in legal discussions by the highest international tribunal of law and are also validated in UN documents.Regards Nishidani 16:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Carolyn Leckie

Your edit may or may not be accurate, but its inappropriate for such a public arena. Ms medusa 23:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hector MacDonald‎

I would appreciate your advice on better handling the contended material. Haiduc 19:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Henry II

Thanks for looking over the article i just put. A week of researching a full Royal article makes you blind to silly little errors, so thanks again :) Tefalstar 20:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Tefalstar

Cardross, Argyll and Bute

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Cardross, Argyll and Bute, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Thank you.Jeepday (talk) 11:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Terry Dactyl and the Dinosaurs

I saw your comment on the talk page. The band in question were genuine enough - well, read the whole article and it is fairly self explanatory. The Jonathan King connection was via, his then record label, UK Records. That is to say that the label released Terry Dactyl and the Dinosaurs material. I hope this clears the matter in your mind. I though it best to post my response here, rather than on the article's talk page, in case you needed to engage in further discussion on the matter. Best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore 20:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Gerry Adams

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or talk pages. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to be an administrator to enforce policy. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

BLP applies to talk pages. Gerry Adams may not sue for libel, but we can most certainly block for BLP Violations. SirFozzie 17:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Randolph

I see what you mean! Yes, Mar right enough says Brown. My apologies. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

My talk page

I kindly suggest you don't add back messages I have removed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Denis Lemon

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Denis Lemon, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.knittingcircle.org.uk/denislemon.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 01:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

NY Dialect

Could you explain what you mean in your needs cleanup comment, give some examples? mnewmanqc 02:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Imprisoned on charges of Terrorism

Hello PatGallacher. I wonder if you could explain you thinking behind the removal of the Category:Irish Republicans imprisoned on charges of terrorism from here and here? You may not be aware, but there has been exhaustive discussion over this issue and appears to be a level of consensus of this categorisation per Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Proposed solution to categorising those imprisoned during The Troubles and the links therein. Briefly, those sentenced in the UK after 1974 were done so on charges relating to anti-terror legislation, hence the cat. Those prior to 1974 and those tried in the ROI are categorised in Category:Republicans imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict. Do you have

Speedy deletion of Christopher Wiles

A tag has been placed on Christopher Wiles 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 notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance 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.

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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ukexpat (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Christopher Wiles. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion. Thank you. ukexpat (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Arab pol.orgs

Hey there, you were the one who put the info about Arab organizations back into the Arab citizens page - what do you think about moving it out to a page of its own or creating a list?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Konnie Huq

Sorry, it wasn't malicious, I was just bored. I'll stop now. You'll hear no more from me. TheRotArm (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

John Thomson

He was engaged to Margaret Finlay - http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CELTICthomson.htm You'll find it says so one paragraph after the picture of both of them in 1931.宁雨翔 (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Anderson

Hi - is Alexander Anderson (Scottish politician) definitely the MP for Motherwell? It sounded unlikely from the brief article we have, but it's not impossible. Warofdreams talk 00:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

MV Princess Victoria

Thanks for that wee bit of help on the article. I think I've done about as much as I sensibly can. Perhaps you'd like to review it again and see if there's anything else you can spot? The sources I have provided contain a lot more information but I think there is a limit to what is required? I made a mistake on the copyright with one of the photographs (the Portpatrick Memorial) - trying to download from Flckr - it was removed by someone because I either shouldn't have used it or got the copyright tags wrong. The Thunderer 18:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Have a wee peek now Pat MV Princess Victoria. The Thunderer (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Willis

Dear Pat, I am on vacation using a very old computer which makes it difficult to edit. The main address for Willis is: http://www.angelfire.com/empire/houseofwillis/ The address for the descendants of George I of Hanover is: http://www.angelfire.com/empire/houseofwillis/geoindex.html Dan is currently re-arranging the files on his site (some aren't presently uploaded), so it is presently a little difficult to use. I wrote Dan last week to ask him to correct Georgina's birth year. I had hoped to speak with Georgina's great-aunt on Sunday at mass (she is a friend of my mother); unfortunately she and her husband were away at their cottage. I will try again next Sunday. (Of course, that would be original research - but I'm still interested). Noel S McFerran (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Royal Descendants

You asked me to point to precedents for deletion: I may be thinking of CFD discussions rather than AFD, but I note that doubt has been expressed as to the value of some such articles. I do not recall what. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sporting Notability

I don't think it's set in stone but it has been more or less(!) agreed that multi-sport non-annual global sporting event are ok (eg Olympics). If it is non-global or annual then the best place for it is in 2008 in sports. It would certainly be excessive to add annual events as that would not only be unnecessary but would add too much to the page. Pretty sure that even a bi-annual single sport event would fall into the same category. Perhaps add it as a topic for discussion on the Talk:2008 page or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years page? Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Guthrum II

Hello Pat. When you have a mo, can you look at Guthrum II and let me know what you reckon of the changes? Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete of Elexia Hilton.

You tagged this article for speedy delete as an "Attempt to re-create previously deleted material". I don't know if you are aware but speedy delete criteria G4 only applies to pages deleted after a deltion discusion in this case an AfD and can not apply to pages speedy deleted. I can find no such completed AfD (there's certainly no mention of it in the logs) so have removed the speedy. I'd be happy for you to restore it if you can link to the apporopiate AfD. It's also easier for people reviewing speedy requests if you use the appropiate template, in this case Template:db-g4, which will automatically link to the AfD if the article deleted used the same name. Dpmuk (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, PatGallacher. You have new messages at Chamal N's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

William Wallace

Hi Pat, saw your comments on the Wallace page. It is a mess and he deserves a lot better. I have done a lot of work on Adrew Moray's page, and it looks a lot better (I still have some work to do adding references, but I'll do that soon). I am tempted to have a go at Wallace, but I am concerned it may be a rather thankless task as that page appears to attract vandals a lot. I'll maybe have a go once I'm happy Andrew's finished. Jaygtee (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Unsure

I'm not sure I'm following you here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability checks

Hello. I notice that you have queried the notability of Cole (Hampshire cricketer) and Robert Ayling (cricketer). Their notability rests in the fact that they both played first-class cricket, which is termed major cricket in both articles. Major cricket is the same thing but with a wider scope. Both the articles are stubs and could certainly be expanded in due course but they both quote impeccable references (Haygarth and CricketArchive).

WP:CRIC has notability guidelines set out in WP:CRIN and these are compliant with WP:ATHLETE under WP:N. In short, anyone who played in a major cricket fixture has notability for WP purposes.

I hope this helps but if you'd like to discuss it further, best to raise it at WT:CRIC. Regards. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Possibly living people

"Possibly living people" is not a dumping ground for everyone over 90 that does not have a date of death. Many of the people you have placed in that category are either easily verifiable as alive or have a clear death date; about half of the people that you have placed in this category I have been able to move out with less than 60 seconds of research. Please stop abusing this category; you are expected to make a good faith source for resources. Thank you. Cheers, CP 17:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say that? PatGallacher (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's incredibly disruptive for someone to have to review your edits and correct what are very simple errors: of the seven last people you added "to possibly living people", I provided sources for the fact that are either living or deceased for six of them, all of which were found with simple Google searches and one of which I found by simply looking at the talk page of the article. Adding people to categories that they don't belong to en masse is disruptive editing. Cheers, CP 17:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Good job with the article about the Revolt of the Comuneros. I'm the author of the Castilian version and I'm proud of the translation and your awesome job :) Have you thought about to promote the article to FA? Regards! Rastrojo (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Günter Deckert

I have removed material from Günter Deckert that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

THe AFD

was about the BLP. Which I removed. Which you put back. Dlohcierekim 15:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Günter Deckert

I have just reverted your edit to this page. I am quite frankly astonished and appalled that you think this is adequate sourcing for the negative material on the page. Our policy on the biographies of living people applies to all such pages. I urge you in the strongest terms to stop re-inserting this content without proper sourcing.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted you again. Sourcing an article like this does not mean collecting whatever links you can dig up. It means going through each assertion and attempting to find a source for it.

If you replace this content again, I will block you.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

And if you continue to remove people from the category of "living people" when evidence of them being alive is readily available, such as with Errol Harris and the, many, many others that I have had to revert, I will suggest the same action. Cheers, CP 00:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that this evidence was "readily available", people may be using different search engines. We're supposed to be working together, not making threats. PatGallacher (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything illegitimate about tidying up an article based on the information contained in without further research? We are supposed to be working together, articles often improve by increments rather than in major steps, sometimes editors do effectively identify points which merit further research without doing the research themselves. I would not dispute that, in cases of people aged 90+ where there are no recent refs., it would often be desirable for people to do further research, but are they obliged to do so? Is there a Wikipedia guideline which says this, or is this just your personal opinion? I assume that all the legal and other caveats about BLPs apply to "possibly living people", if not this ought to be clarified. PatGallacher (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Bold but too bold

Your recent edit to Line of succession to the British throne was a bit too bold. You don't go make such a wholesale change without a few days' warning an notification to recent major editors. Unless other editors form a consensus to support your edit, I'm going to revert it 24 hours after the edit was made. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Henry Hall (American)

Hello. I've PRODded an article you created for deletion. It was tagged for notability a few months ago, but I know what a great job you've done on other articles, so if you can improve this page, please do so. Thanks, Boleyn2 (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

you presumably got the information from somewhere, so please add the source at least & deprod it. There's probably something more to say about the cranberries at least. DGG (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

3rr

Hi Pat. I believe you have violated 3rr on Cynthia McKinney. Can you self revert ASAP? Thanks. IronDuke 06:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The three revert rule does not apply to removing unsourced or poorly sourced material from the biographies of living people. PatGallacher (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Also my last revert was to remove flagrant vandalism, also not covered by the 3rr. PatGallacher (talk) 12:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, your last revert was entirely proper. However, you reverted four other times, three regarding Dershowitz, and one putting back information re Hurricane Katrina: [3] [4], [5], [6]. And you cannot justify these reverts merely by asserting BLP. If that were the case, any information on any living person could be taken away, simply by intoning those three letters. It isn't that you've made a bad case; you've made no case at all. IronDuke 16:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and just to be sure, I'm assuming that IP edit making the same content deletion you were making wasn't you... right? IronDuke 16:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't use IPs. PatGallacher (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed (and I note he hasn't informed you, as he should have done), IronDuke has filed a 3RR against you here. One of the reverts he's included (as above) is your return of material oddly cut out by an IP editor. So technically I don't see a 3RR breach (although I'm no expert on the technicalities here), and in any event the BLP concerns are real - the Dershowitz quote specifically accuses her of being an anti-Semite, not just of (maybe) having some among her entourage occasionally. Given both these points - and that Iron Duke has also performed 4 reverts in 24 hours himself, 2 of which were of the Dershowitz material, while at the same time telling both you and me that we need to get ourselves educated before we have a right to edit or comment, it all seems a little rich. Anyways, just thought I'd let you know. --Nickhh (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I reverted three times, one of those being reverting a banned editor (which would leave me one more reversion to make, which I have opted not to do). If you insist on folowing me around, could you please not misrepresent my edits? IronDuke 19:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Lorenzo Zanetti

A tag has been placed on Lorenzo Zanetti 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 about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, 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

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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 03:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the speedy-deletion tag and sent the article to AfD, see below. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Lorenzo Zanetti

An article that you have been involved in editing, Lorenzo Zanetti, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorenzo Zanetti. Thank you. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Jane Grey - Contracts

You asked why Frances Brandon was passed over by Edward VI when he made his "Devise for the Succession." Since you were always a level-headed person, I am answering your question here rather than on the article's "Talk" page, as I do not wish to get into another dispute with astrologer "Jeanne," who had posted an erroneous response to your query. I stopped visiting Wikipedia after my last dispute with her over LJG's date of birth.

Contrary to popular mythmaking, Northumberland had little to do with the Devise. It was, most historians now believe, almost entirely of Edward's own making. There are multiple drafts of the Devise in Edward's hand. In an early draft, he excluded all women from the succession, to the extent that unborn children of pregnant women were eligible to succeed while their mothers were not. Frances Brandon Grey was never included as an heiress in any of the drafts of Edward's Devise. There were two reasons: she was female, and she was thought unlikely to bear additional children that might prove to be male (a correct assumption, as it turned out, for she had no more children, with either Henry Grey or Adrian Stokes). And in an intermediate draft, Jane herself was not included ... only her potential (but as yet unconceived) male child by Guildford was included, though Jane was to be regent during that putative male child's minority.

So Frances Brandon Grey was excluded from the line of succession following Edward VI not because Northumberland convinced her to step aside, but because she was never "in" in the first place, owing to her gender and the improbability in 1553 that she would bear additional make children.

I will not be checking the article again for a very long time. If you have questions or wish to contact me, you can do so through my website, listed among the external links on the LJG article. PhD Historian (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Lines of Succession

Which lines are you proposing? WP:SBS keeps precise track of all our succession lists and related templates so I need to review and update our information. Thanks for the heads-up.
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 20:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Line of succession to the English throne in 1701 PatGallacher (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the prod

I thought it had been removed without good reason, so I reverted the removal, my apologies. Bevo74 (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV template on Wallace Sword

Hi, I noticed you added an NPOV template to Wallace Sword recently, and I had a couple of comments to offer about it:

• the {{totally-disputed}} template is probably more appropriate and useful. From your comments, you don't think it is non-neutral, you think it is just plain wrong
• an NPOV or other tag on an article really needs an explanation on the talk page to back it up. Your update comment says that "no serious scholar believes" it is really Wallace's Sword. I'm quite prepared to believe what you say, but I and other readers need citations that provide evidence. Without an explanation and evidence to back it up, an NPOV template will get removed.

Therefore I would be grateful if you could add an explanatory comment on the talk page. Everyone will benefit from it. Andreclos (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Accidental edit

Hello,

I think you accidently made changes to a paragraph in this edit that is in the "Civilian protests" section (at the bottom of your edit). If this is accidental, can you please undo your edits, if this is not, can you explain your concerns. Thanks.VR _talk 18:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Somebody seems to have done this already. PatGallacher (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaza solidarity

Greetings Pat! Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palestine#Gaza Devotion period. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Moray

Hi Pat. I am interested to see that you have tagged the Andrew Moray article with an OR tag. I would point out to you that the thesis that Moray was killed at Stirling is not new. It is stated quite explicitly in the inquisition into his uncle's death (which is cited). I am following Joseph Bain, who pointed this out in his the Introduction to the second-volume of Calendar. In volume one of Hume-Brown's History of Scotland (footnote p.146) he accepts Moray's death at Stirling. In modern times, the theory has been published in History Scotland magazine. I agree that there is no certainty about Moray's death, but there can never be any absolute certainty about events 200 years ago. So, please remove he OR tag as it is not appropriate.Jaygtee (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Category removals

I'm not sure why you removed certain categories from an article, but I've restored them. I don't see that there's any controversy about the applicability of the categories on the talk page, so as I said I'm not sure of the reason for the removal, so I thought I'd let you know what I've done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Ashraf Ribhi Banar

A tag has been placed on Ashraf Ribhi Banar requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 20:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ashraf Ribhi Banar

An article that you have been involved in editing, Ashraf Ribhi Banar, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashraf Ribhi Banar. Thank you. WWGB (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Fictional characters CFDs

Hi, I suspect you didn't notice this other CFD (on the same page) or you would have commented on it. Cgingold (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Demographic threat

You made a suggestion on the talk page of Demographic threat several months ago. I happened on the page this morning and have made some improvements following your suggestion. I would be glad to see you add a section on northern Ireland, as you suggested should be done.Historicist (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Fuziyah al-Ouni

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Fuziyah al-Ouni, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Unreferenced and orphan BLP with no assertion of notability.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Fuziyah al-Ouni

I have nominated Fuziyah al-Ouni, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuziyah al-Ouni (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Scott Mac (Doc) 00:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahmed Barzani

Check the cited source on his religion again I don't know why you changed it. http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0000258376/0000258376_0014.gif

Abstrakt (talk)

Bruce Lee three revert warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bruce Lee. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. A new name 2008 (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of the need to avoid edit warring, but I would have thought that this means not removing "dubious" and similar flags without an attempt to resolve the issue. I see another user has restored the "dubious" flag. You will find that only 2 of my edits were reverts, the first one was not. PatGallacher (talk) 09:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Reversion

Please see Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. You reverted my edits on Desiree Washington despite the fact that I had added dates. Please incorporate your edits rather than reverting. ENeville (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

Pat, could you please take a look at what I wrote here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Desiree_Washington ? Appreciated.ForIsrael421 (talk) 10:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

MILITANT GAY POV BIAS

User is MGPOVbias Please investigate...

Re: Hot Pants

In reply to your question on Talk:Hot Pants (song): broadly speaking, yes, the James Brown song has a much stronger claim to notability than the Gene Summers song. It charted #1 R&B and #15 Pop in America on its original release, and it has been reissued on dozens of compilations since then. While the Gene Summers song apparently got some favorable (but brief) notices in trade publications 38 years ago, nothing in the article on the song indicates that it charted or had much of an impact, then or now. Frankly, it seems quite obscure - it does not show up in AllMusic's listing of songs recorded by Gene Summers (did it even receive an album release?), and while it may be a very nice song it is very questionable whether it rises to the level of notability. Please have a look at WP:NSONGS for more context.

I have nonetheless added a disambiguation link on the Hot Pants (song) page. InnocuousPseudonym (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Desiree Washington

An article that you have been involved in editing, Desiree Washington, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desiree Washington. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 07:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Chrysalids edit reversion

Pat, What's the reason for reverting my fix of what was a rather awkwardly constructed sentence and my addition of the word "agrarian"? -- Rydra Wong (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Mary Marquis

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Mary Marquis. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mary Marquis

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Mary Marquis, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Notability not established through reliable sources.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. لennavecia 16:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Mary Marquis

Can I move this article to User:PatGallacher/Mary Marquis while you work on it, and move it back to the mainspace once notability has been established via reliable sources independent of the subject? لennavecia 18:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Give me until the end of today before taking such a course. PatGallacher (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. لennavecia 18:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Scottish battles

In light of your involvement at Battle of Lanark I encourage you to read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland#Scottish battles/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medieval Scotland#Scottish battles. Uncle G (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Historian of Scotland

Blocked for disruptive editing but also a sockpuppet of User:Scotland Rules who has been editing also through IPs, eg the now blocked after I found him 70.68.12.46 (talk · contribs), so feel free to rv anything by them. Two other IPs have also been blocked. Dougweller (talk) 05:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:People executed by the Roman Empire

My apologies if you think some of my additions to this category do not belong. Perhaps it needs better definition. Define "executed by the Roman Empire" please. Does that mean killed in act of war or killed by decree of the Emperor or Senate, or what? 75.15.200.151 (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for cleaning up: [7]. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Bob Ainsworth and the International Marxist Group

The veracity of your edit at the beginning of 2005 is causing some consternation on the talk page of Ainsworth's article. Care to comment? Philip Cross (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I too am most interested in this entry. Are you able to provide a reference of any kind for it?

Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Liver Birds

I noticed you tagged the article on the liver birds, saying it needs to be wikified. I have been writing some synopses for the episodes but was wondering if this is actually annoying to people, and not needed or wanted. I do it because I have some episodes on video and if I'm bored I think well, I'll do an episode of liver birds or george and mildred. Does it violate the 'house style' of wikipedia, I just wondered if the tag was aimed at the little synopses of the episodes?Sayerslle (talk) 01:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Dukes of Albany

I agree with your historical assessment of the significance of Duke Robert. I listed it as a must do article at the wikiproject some years ago, but it has never got much attention. If you have a library card you can access the ODNB article. If you don't, I could email you the content of the article. That's if you plan to work on it that is. Boardman's Early Stewart Kings article covers him reasonably well, but I confidently expect he will get better coverage still in the upcoming fourth volume of the New Edinburgh History of Scotland. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Malcolm Wallace

Hello PatGallacher, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Malcolm Wallace has been removed. It was removed by ThaddeusB with the following edit summary '(contest prod - appears to be a notable person (see: http://books.google.com/books?um=1&q=%22Malcolm+Wallace+%22+%22Elderslie%22&btnG=Search+Books) - will properly source article ASAP)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with ThaddeusB before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

CfD nomination of Category:Musical sibling duos

I have nominated Category:Musical sibling duos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Sibling musical duos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)