User talk:PatGallacher/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:PatGallacher. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
The article Talk show (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Article seams to posses little or no merit.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TucsonDavid (talk) 08:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Talk show (disambiguation)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Talk show (disambiguation) 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 {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. TucsonDavid (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Papal Titles
"I saw it claimed that some Italian titles were awarded by the Pope and are therefore still valid regardless of the view of the Italian government."
I think you are slightly misunderstanding. The Pope created many Papal title on Italians (and others) before the creation of Italy and those titles being Papal survive and continue to be recognised by the Vatican (indeed in occasionally still settles disputes/succession) As to Papal recognition of titles created by the various Kingdoms of Italy I can't say what the modern recognition is - thought they certainly were recognised pre '46. Garlicplanting (talk) 10:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
The article Archibald Strachan has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 21:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The article Archibald Strachan has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 21:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 21:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Manchester Martyrs
Thanks Pat, For the heads up. I find it amusing you use the word attack as that was one of my points in my piece, when is an "attack" an "event"? I mean you just voiced an opinion that I attacked editors who let's say don't shed a tear at images showing the body parts of dead British soldiers lining the streets of Northern Ireland over the past 40 years. But then at the same time show rabid Islamaphobia at the thoughts of Jihadists launching terrorists attacks on "Christian" Europeans. The bottom line is what you call an attack I call fair criticism of inherent bias in the editorialship of this website and it's clear partisan attitude towards the Troubles. Nearly every article makes the point that the so-called "men of violence" were only doing it to free Ireland of British rule. Seems to me that Al Queda is only trying to do the same and free Muslims from Western control. Whiff of hypocrisy in the air?
Your message has a twinge of WP:IDL because rather than refute me you just gave it the old ad hominem that I am attacker of virtue. If you call my criticism an attack then sorry you need to get a thicker skin if you want to work on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.148.12 (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
TB Tofutwitch11
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 02:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
spencer
Hi pat, whats going on at the spencer article? There is a thread at the BLPN here - your insider comments would be appreciated, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I see you are blocked, feel free to comment here and I will move your comments to the BLPN for you. Or just wait, I have removed the disputed content anyways, it was uncited, pretty contentious anyways imo. Off2riorob (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, now that somebody has explained that they do have legitimate concerns about the content of this article I'll give them the benefit of the doubt at present, I realise this is a BLP, but this sort of thing can be difficult to distinguish from vandalism. You will see that I did appeal to however it was to explain their changes on the IP's talk page. PatGallacher (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- No worries, thanks for explaining. There is a pattern of similar additions emerging from the dynamic range that added it there, thanks for commenting. Off2riorob (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
December 2010
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)I think this was a mistake on my part, I didn't realise that rejecting dubious changes using reviewer status was itself covered by the 1RR, although this sort of issue might be explained more clearly. However I'm not going to make a fuss over a 24-hour block. PatGallacher (talk)
- Well I'll unblock you if you agree to self-revert. The article is a bit of a mess so I apologize, I've chosen to be heavy-handed. And the edit didn't look dubious to me. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- This is interesting. I was about to reject the same dubious change using reviewer status, having previously, like Pat, made a revert on this article. His act preempted me, otherwise I might have been in the same situation. I think there is a degree of ambiguity/unclarity about such edits, which needs to be resolved explicitly. The specific edit, by the way, is certainly dubious, rejecting as false the description of the pictures on Commons. RolandR (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- It is not a get out of a revert condition to claim you were acting as a reviewer, you would have a case if is was a unmitigated BLP violation or very clear vandalism, which this doesn't seem to be, best is if there is a restriction allow uninvolved users to review. Off2riorob (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Guys, you do realize that there's a clause that says "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty" (emphasis mine), right? I'm prepared to unblock. T. Canens (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ah yes, its there bold as brass on the template. Yes , clearly there was no violation and I support unblock. Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Guys, you do realize that there's a clause that says "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty" (emphasis mine), right? I'm prepared to unblock. T. Canens (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- It is not a get out of a revert condition to claim you were acting as a reviewer, you would have a case if is was a unmitigated BLP violation or very clear vandalism, which this doesn't seem to be, best is if there is a restriction allow uninvolved users to review. Off2riorob (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- This is interesting. I was about to reject the same dubious change using reviewer status, having previously, like Pat, made a revert on this article. His act preempted me, otherwise I might have been in the same situation. I think there is a degree of ambiguity/unclarity about such edits, which needs to be resolved explicitly. The specific edit, by the way, is certainly dubious, rejecting as false the description of the pictures on Commons. RolandR (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I'll unblock. For future reference, everyone, you can always revert my decision when I'm not around if there's consensus like this; no need to stand on process. I totally missed that clause about IP edits; it's rather buried in the text. My apologies to Pat. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Wording tweaks on the royal wedding
Hi there-
I opened a discussion on the wording tweaks you reverted here. Not trying to start an edit fight or push an agenda re: the content, I just think the sentences as written are poorly constructed. --Jfruh (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The article Mariya Muzychuk has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Kudpung (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
My message
I just thought you would like to know,I have given you a WARNING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.199.169 (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
"rejected"?
Sorry, but who are you exactly to be "rejecting" my contributions? HiramEsther (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I have now explained this on the article's talk page. PatGallacher (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The article Bob Wellings has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. ϢereSpielChequers 00:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi PatGallacher
You removed the {{Notability}} tag from the above-captioned article with the sole explanation that it was "a joke". I have replaced it. The current article doesn't establish notability, and my own media search was unable to find significant coverage. If you wish to remove it again, please provide more substantive commentary on why the tag is inapplicable on the article's talk page.
Bongomatic 17:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Savannah Phillips
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Savannah Phillips requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ttonyb (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- On a related note: What's your source for the child's name? I can't find one! DBD 22:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Israeli settlement - Jewish settlement
Could you explain me in what 'Jewish settlement' is partisan ? Noisetier (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Did you get my message ? I don't understand what you see as 'partisan' in 'Jewish settlement'. Noisetier (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Warning
Do you need to warn someone for an obvious mistake? You should of just undone it and moved on.
It did look like vandalism, but if it was an honest mistake fair enough. PatGallacher (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well it was, why would I vandalize an article when ive made 1,787 edits. By the looks over it you've upset a lot over people on here. I hope I don't come across you again. Baldboris99 (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Adding template "Don't template the regulars" to inform user
Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humor. Best wishes. Finn Rindahl (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Referring to your recent edit at User_talk:Scrivener-uki, have a nice day.
- LOL Did you think this was a vandal 'commenting' on Tommy's court performance? The Oriffice (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of Heather Mills (journalist) for deletion
The article Heather Mills (journalist) is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Mills (journalist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rob (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Twelve apostles
Category:Twelve apostles, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Moving William the Lion
Pat, can I ask that the article William the Lion be moved back to its location. I will do this myself, but it is better that you do it. It was stable at that location. If you choose not to respect a 64 month name as stable it may work for your own POV in this particular case, but you'll find that the precedent undermines later positions you take AND creates instability in Wikipedia in general. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- To my mind a move which was made without proper discussion around 6 months ago does not trump the most recent formal move discussion. PatGallacher (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- See WP:BRD and WP:SILENCE. The current name is the established now, having been established for well over the normal time. A RM three years ago only questionably close when we had different guidelines is irrelevant. You are experienced enough to know that once a page is at a location for 1 month or longer, it is generally recognized as the new default location. Transgressing this Wikipedia etiquette is short-sighted. Though it may benefit your position here, it won't benefit others later and will cause a break-down of a custom that helps neutralize article instability. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have re-moved the article to William the Lion and protected it for a week in the hope of preventing a move war. I realise this is the "wrong" version from you point of view but it is clear that the alternative is currently controversial and needs to go through WP:RM. Similar notes sent to others involved. Regards, Ben MacDui 11:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Dudimose
I noticed that you reverted my redirect to Dedumose II. I just wanted to point out that these people are one and the same. The spelling Dusimose is outdated and the article did not include the latest research by scholars such as Ryholt and Bennett. But I see your point. I did a quick search and Dudimose is referred to in other articles (with mistakes I think?) Not sure where to go to discuss how to clean this up. --AnnekeBart (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- After looking at it again, I still think the redirect is the way to go. The king is equated with Dedumose II. The original Dudimose article is not well written, and not well referenced. The only source mentioned is Rohl, which is considered fringe. The information about Dedumose's identfication with Tutimaios is mentioned in the Dedumose II article. And this is not generally accepted by Egyptologists. I honestly see no justification keeping the old article around. --AnnekeBart (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Revert
You just participated in an edit war without using the talk page with an edit summary saying "it looks like" even though it really is objectionable. Portions of it might be acceptable but you are now part of the problem.Cptnono (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- The previous edit which I reverted did not make any reference to the talk page either. PatGallacher (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- So? There actually is a discussion. Just say you made a mistake and we can forget about it.Cptnono (talk) 12:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Are you going out of your way to be disruptive and/or upset that someone brought up your mistake? There is a talk page that has been used by other editors besides you and the now blocked editor. Further reverts on your part will lead to a request to have you blocked from the topic area since you are making the situation worse. You also reverted something that has support on the talk page so learn to use it.Cptnono (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Follow-up: I planned on filing an ANIt o get you notified of the arbitration case. You are already aware of it from the block situation awhile back. No more shenanigans. If you are going to refuse to use the talk page and make reverts that support edits from a disruptive editor then I will be glad to see you gone from the topic. Please just use the talk page since most established editors are able to figure it out.Cptnono (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- The previous edit which I reverted did not make any reference to the talk page either. PatGallacher (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Wrong person...
You sent a message to this IP stating than an article had been edited badly. Seems like a silly thing to do as what were the chances of the message reaching the correct person? I was just looking something up and received a very rude message from you, rather glad the person it was aimed at didn't get it to be honest. If you really do think that's the way to tell someone they are doing something wrong, then it explains all the negative comments on this page. 212.183.128.3 (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Concerning this edit of yours: please see WP:EGG, and the discussion on my talk page concerning piped links. "Year in film" piped links for dates are no longer favoured. See this talk page for further details, and if still in doubt, consult Users Millahnna and IllaZilla. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Just a courtesy call to say that I have started a discussion on whether the page should be deleted. It has gone straight to afd because she was previously deleted (and redirected to Tommy) way back in 2004. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Your recent edit to The Chrysalids
Just thought I'd drop you a note regarding this edit you made, with the edit summary “don’t think this is crucial”. Personally, I think these concise sentences provide a useful and interesting context for understanding this book; for example, the fact that this work precedes Midwich Cuckoos, in which he further develops the telepathy theme. The sentences may not be “crucial”, but I would like to make a case for their inclusion. I was tempted simply to revert your change, with a terse edit summary, but I always prefer to act in co-operation with other experienced editors. Would you agree to reverting your change and putting back this insight into the context of this book within the author's body of work? Sincerely, — Hebrides (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this is crucial enough to go into the intro, but feel free to expand at the point it is. PatGallacher (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Caning in Malaysia
Amnesty International is certainly a reliable source for what Amnesty International thinks, but that doesn't mean its statements have to be taken as incontrovertible objective truth. It is a pressure group after all, not a neutral observer. I didn't remove anything they said, I merely made it more clear that this is what they allege, and others may or may not agree. I think my version is therefore more NPOV. -- Alarics (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The article Bahareh Hedayat has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Links are to possible COI sources. Subject not Notable
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Enfcer (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Myra Taylor
I've created a page for a Kansas City based Jazz singer also named Myra Taylor. She is now 94 and has had an 80 year career in music, including number 1 songs. At the moment, she is at Myra Taylor (Jazz singer) and would like to move her to Myra Taylor, and move Myra Taylor to Myra Taylor (screenwriter), if that is OK. This one has been challenged for notability since 2007. Please let me know if you have any objections. Thanks. K8 fan (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Talha Ahsan
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
A tag has been placed on Talha Ahsan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: 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.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} at the top of the article, immediately below the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate), and providing your reasons for contesting on the article's talk page, 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. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
You may want to read the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. ► Wireless Keyboard ◄. 21:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi
Hi, you might be interested in joining the Afd on Emilia Carr. I personally believe it is Keep for this in the very least a Weak Keep. But the more opinions the better.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Re:User 194.60.38.10
I'm assuming this is the MP's or their staff. Is it enough to remind of BLP or should we ban like USA Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The Bowmans? Apart from being a parody of The Archers, there's nothing else in common. Why does this need to be here when we don't list other parodies? Senseless, in my opinion. Rodhullandemu 00:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC),
As far as I am aware these are the only 2 parodies of this incident. do you know of any more? So there is a serious connection between them. It might be different if we were trying to list all the parodies of something which has been parodied several times. Also, in context the killing of Grace Archer was important in the history of British popular culture, although now only half-remembered. PatGallacher (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I take your point but I'm not convinced that The Bowmans belongs in this article, since it surely is more closely connected with The Archers itself, and that is the linking problem. Fair enough to link it from The Archers, but here, I see it as being off-topic. If there were more examples that I could point to right now, there would be scope to have an article in its own right, but with only a handful at best, I think they should descend topically from "The Archers" and not cross unnecessary boundaries. But then, what is my opinion worth any more? Rodhullandemu 01:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The article Dorothy Bain has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Having prosecuted one notable case does not one notable make.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- Just a note, it might have been easier to just explain to him what he did and why instead of templating him. This is a very useful essay. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 17:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Cleopatra (1963 film)
"It's interesting" is not a reason to put it back in. It's unsourced WP:OR that's been there for over a year. Chainsawing a huge chunk of unsourced-ness isn't harmful. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Daniel O'Donnell
I really do think the Daniel O'Donnell should be protected or semi-protected due to the nature of his personality and image. I'm not sure how to do this, I'd be grateful if you could do it on my behalf! --ColmanHuge (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're asking me. You can raise this at Wikipedia:requests for page protection if you like. However, looking at the page history, there has only been a handful of reverts due to vandalism in the past month, nothing like the level which would be needed to justify even semi-protection. The nature of his personality and image is irrelevant. PatGallacher (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Patrick Meehan
If you have valid references then they must be cited. Otherwise OR is deleted. If the links are not available online then as much information should be provided as possible, i.e. ISBN#, pages, editor, publisher, etc. as per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
P.S. - are you aware that there is apparent vandalism ("im trying to get mcso wikipedia better == Martin County Sheriff IMtrying to get it started it up if you will help me i would appricate it") at the top of this page? I'll leave it to you to decide if you want to remove it rather than taking that liberty myself. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Template substitution
Hello. Please do not substitute article maintenance templates (see [1]) as it creates a lot of junk in the wikicode. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
My Dirty Username
Hello Pat after i saw this message i decided to review the username policy again and here is why i think im keeping it and if you prove me wrong i'll gladly ask for a change in username.
Reason 1:Promotional Username-this would not apply to me because my name is not promoting a group,website,company or product.
Reason 2:Offensive Usernames-My username is not directed at any kind of specific person,Country or Culture and editors shouldn't worry about the name of the person who edited the article they shoul only be worried about correcting mistakes, adding new info or ending vandalism.
Reason 3:Disruptive Usernames-my username is not a troll on Wikipedia or any user,it is not intended for disruption as users should not worry only admins and the words Jiggle Me Sacks are not Profanity because if i wanted something worse i could have put JiggleMeBalls.
Reason 4:Misleading Usernames-my username does not impersonate other people nor does it include an ip address or timestamps,and in now way does it mislead people to think i am higher than wikipedia or any of its users or supporters.
and once again if you prove me wrong i'll admit defeat and ask for a name change
Have a Good Day — Preceding unsigned comment added by JiggleMeSacks (talk • contribs) 22:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Invitation to take part in a pilot study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes’’’. cooldenny (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
You left this on my talk page:
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at You're at it again, this is only likely to result in a longer block., you may be blocked from editing without further notice. PatGallacher (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
What are you referring to? Please provide details or escalate this to a higher level. Wikipedia is NOT about random warnings without support. You and your buddies need to back off unless you are going to play by the rules of the game! Is this how you play in the real world of cops? 216.189.209.130 (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)216.189.209.130
- What is VANDALISM? See: Wikipedia:Vandalism
Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. 216.189.209.130 (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)216.189.209.130
The TALK section, based on people who actually follow such things, is the appropriate area for discussions of topics.
If you can prove me wrong in anything I write, I will gladly retract my comments, however you can not stifle honest dialog. Look up the definition of vandalism before you continue you claims. 216.189.209.130 (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)216.189.209.130
The article Bryan Simpson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- It fails notability (WP:N) for living persons (WP:BIO) is not sourced
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — VikingViolinist | Talk 02:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
(delete section - see talk)
I was just about to do that. Good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Motoroilforblood (talk • contribs) 15:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
James IV
Thank you for fleshing out the fictional depictions section in the article about James IV of Scotland. Could you also add additional depictions to James V? Dimadick (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
The article Colin Beattie has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Cind.amuse 21:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
The article Roderick Campbell has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. joe deckertalk to me 21:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The article Jean Urquhart has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Eeekster (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
The article Chic Brodie (politician) has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Tassedethe (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
changing an article to a redirect
Greetings. Here you changed an article to a redirect and referred people to the talk page, where there is only one comment. I don't think this is sufficient discussion so I reverted you, fyi. Shootbamboo (talk) 02:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Helena Bonham Carter
PatGallacher, I noticed that you removed content that I had added about Carter's post-childbirth incontinence. A targeted search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=JW5&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22problems+after+having+a+baby+and+bladder+control+is+minimal%22+%22helena+bonham+carter%22+-thelondonpaper+-dailydiapers&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=) yielded more than a hundred references to this quotation outside of the The London Paper. Considering that this condition is reality for many women after childbirth (as evidenced by Wikipedia's own articles), it seems fair to me to include this information about her personal life. However, you appear to be a senior editor, so perhaps you might be able to explain your reasoning to the contrary.KlappCK (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not a "senior editor". I am cautious about including this in a BLP, we would need a clear reference that she has gone public about this. PatGallacher (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- PatGallacher, I assume you are referring to [BLP] guidelines, but to which one in particular are your referring? As you've had thousands of edits (kinda' what I meant by "senior"), I was hoping you might be able to educate me on some content guidelines. There is similar content about the personal life of Mary Lou Retton, so I am unclear as to whether or not this material is fair game. Are you saying that one source is up to Wikipedia standards and the other is not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klappck (talk • contribs) 14:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
So, is she notable for being a lesbian? I don't remember Isobel Fraser introducing her as "... Ruth Davidson, lesbian Scottish Conservative MSP ...". Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, she is only the 2nd lesbian to be elected to the Scottish Parliament. However I don't see how we draw the line between being notable for being a lesbian and being a lesbian. PatGallacher (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Second Karaite community
In this edit you imply that there is another large Karaite community in the world. Where? Debresser (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
There appear to be significant communities of Karaites in USA, ex-USSR, Turkey. Israel may well have the world's largest, but it would help to have a clear source. PatGallacher (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am really not an expert. I know about the Israeli Karaite community. There are Karaites in the Crimea as well, historically, but I doubt whether they are organised into any sort of a community. I'll try to look around at the karaite websites, and if needed, will adjust the text of the article accordingly. Debresser (talk) 08:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- See Karaites#Karaite_Judaism_by_region that there are various Karaite communities. I also found quite a few English karaite websites, including one of Karaite Jews of America. Nevertheless, the resulting edit was a surprising one. See the editsummary for an explanation. Debresser (talk) 08:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of Patrick Meehan (producer) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Patrick Meehan (producer) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Meehan (producer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
PQ 17
Hello Pat
I notice you put an expand tag on Convoy PQ 17; I’ve opened a discussion here about it. Was there anything in particular from the Russian article that caught your eye? Xyl 54 (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
After Midnight (1990 film)
Hey, I found After Midnight (1990 film) while stub sorting. What do you think of the Wikiproject and stub category I put it in? --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 04:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of Christopher Shale for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christopher Shale is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Shale until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. GiantSnowman 20:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Hot Asphalt
A tag has been placed on Hot Asphalt, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Reichsfürst (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Tristane Banon
Hi Pat,
Why did you blank content from Tristane Banon without asking for consensus at the Talk page. Why did you create a fork without first seeking consensus on the Talk page. Please reply on the Banon Talk page Talk:Tristane_Banon#Sexual_assault_allegation_.27Main_article.27_fork here.
Didn't you also enquire at the DSK page? The consensus there was plainly no. Why did you proceed, anyway? FightingMac (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of Dominique Strauss-Kahn Tristane Banon alleged sexual assault for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dominique Strauss-Kahn Tristane Banon alleged sexual assault is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominique Strauss-Kahn Tristane Banon alleged sexual assault until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)