User talk:SP-KP/Talk page archive 2009 a

Proposed deletion of Interest in place names which are sometimes considered amusing or unusual

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Interest in place names which are sometimes considered amusing or unusual, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

See WP:MADEUP and WP:OR

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. Ironholds (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Interest in place names which are sometimes considered amusing or unusual

I have nominated Interest in place names which are sometimes considered amusing or unusual, 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/Interest in place names which are sometimes considered amusing or unusual. 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. Ironholds (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of chemical compounds with unusual names AFD

In the AFD you say you have no opinion apart from the idea that it should be applied uniformly to all the relevant articles. If that's the case, then why did you nominate it for deletion rather than starting a central discussion on the topic? Starting yet another AFD isn't going to solve the inconsistency - Mgm|^(talk) 10:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just prefer it when people discuss first and delete later, so I'd have been a lot happier if you opened the discussion first. 'Unusual' have been nominated so often that there's already holes of deleted stuff. If we do the discussion first, we actually have articles to discuss. (So non-admins can make an educated decision) Just start the discussion as soon as you can humanly do it and it'll be fine. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with a subpage of Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion like [[Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Lists of unusual things - Mgm|^(talk) 10:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mgm. Aiming to determine community consensus on "list of unusual ..." articles is a fine objective, but initiating a series of AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chemical compounds with unusual names (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual deaths (fourth nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual personal names (3rd nomination) is not the right way to go about it. Mgm has suggested one place to start a centralised discussion - another possible venue is Wikipedia talk:Lists. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Centralized discussion

I think the last two bullets on to-consider list don't sound neutral, for example by putting the phrase "sneaky way to get around the guidelines" at the back of the sentence it gets more weight. I think it would be better to simply state ways in which you could change such lists and ask why they would or wouldn't be acceptable (i.e. whether renaming, specific sorting by sort of unusual, etc make any difference to the debate). - Mgm|^(talk) 20:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to go. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me to it. Mandsford (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Birds February newsletter

The February 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. MeegsC | Talk 21:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request that you withdraw GA nomination for On the Origin of Species

I am requesting that you withdraw your nomination of On the Origin of Species at this time. It is currently the History of science project collaboration of the month as part of an effort to get it promoted to FA in time for the 150th anniversary of its publication in November. As such it is currently not stable enough for GA consideration. It is also very much in complete in that there is no discussion of the contents of the last 4 chapters (which are very important). After these issues can be addressed (hopefully in a couple of weeks), I would be happy to see it nominated for GA as a step towards FA. Thanks. Rusty Cashman (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your cooperation on this. It has been a wild week what with Darwin Day and with History of evolutionary thought up on the main page. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just completed some, in my opinion, badly needed reorgazization of the reception section. As far as I am concerned there is just one more piece missing and that is a summary of the last 2 chapters of the book. I am currently researching this and should be able to complete it within the next 48 hours or so. When I do I will leave a note for you and on the talk page indicating that I am finished with my major edits. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is about ready for GA. I am still doing a little reference tweaking (there is one section, the inception of the theory, that does not have enough inline references) but I should be done with it by tonight so If you wanted release the nomination for tomorrow or Monday that would be fine. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think everything is finished now, really I mean it this time :) Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual names

What happened to the article on people with unusual names?--EchetusXe (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:MBGBI-vol-2.gif)

Thanks for uploading File:MBGBI-vol-2.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:MBGBI-vol-4.1.gif)

Thanks for uploading File:MBGBI-vol-4.1.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:MBGBI-vol-4.2.gif)

Thanks for uploading File:MBGBI-vol-4.2.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:MBGBI-vol-7.2.gif)

Thanks for uploading File:MBGBI-vol-7.2.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:MBGBI-vol-9.gif)

Thanks for uploading File:MBGBI-vol-9.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:MBGBI-vol-10.gif)

Thanks for uploading File:MBGBI-vol-10.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smile!

A Nobody^{My talk} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hi

Apologies for the intrusion however I noticed that you created this page. As I was interested in the area & the subject I finally got around to dealing with a redlink related to that site here. If you have the time/inclination any thoughts would be welcome. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of Species - GA review

I've produced comments on most of the article at Talk:On the Origin of Species/GA1 and "published" them at Talk:On the Origin of Species. --Philcha (talk) 09:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can look at the link Philcha provided and see for yourself :) Seriously though this has been like no GA review process I have ever been involved with. It has been more like a peer review (except that there have been multiple reviewers) because of the detail and the multiple iterations. It has all been for the best in terms of improving the article, but GA reviews don't normally take this kind of time. I believe we are nearly finished as the only section left that hasn't passed is the lead, but I have thought that before. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]