Jump to content

User talk:UnicornTapestry/Archive 2011

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Your review of Elgin Youth Symphony Orchestra (EYSO)

Hi, just writing to thank you for the cleanup on our page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CohenJoelB (talk • contribs) 18:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! --UnicornTapestry (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Your review of World Wrestling Entertainment

Hi, why did you accept this revision? Some of the names do not wrestle for WWE at this time. Jarkeld (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

As reviewers, we hunt for vandalism and obvious errors. If I recall, changes were coming thick and fast and there is no way we can verify every name, but trust that the people like you who do know will sort the names out.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem

Can you please add the word "occupied" before East Jerusalem, as the whole international community, including the US, UN, EU, Russia recognize East Jerusalem as an occupied city; so I think that it's better to add it, so our readers will know the difference. please reply at my page. Thanks--82.213.38.2 (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

As a neutral reviewer, I must not allow my personal opinion to override the discussion on the article's talk page. It's obviously a heated topic, reflecting the real tensions in that part of the world, and factions are passionate about it. My suggestions:
  1. Register, if you wish, although it's not essential to edit and comment.
  2. Collect your evidence and references and weigh in on the talk page.
  3. Be prepared for vociferous rebuttal. (I noticed arguments that UN decisions and international opinion shouldn't count!)
Best wishes,
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 10:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Miracle

Hi, concerning your acceptance in here, I think if he was transported in one night in that era, it must have been a miracle. Don't you think so ?! Please review it again. Thanks *** in fact *** ( contact ) 11:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Yes, I agree with the transport being a miracle, but I redacted the word for two reasons:
  1. The word injects an opinion (the editor's) as opposed to letting the reader draw their own conclusions.
  2. If you check my extensive edit record, you'll notice I remove a number of adjective and adverbs. As a professional writer, I avoid extraneous modifiers as their use is poor writing practice.
Thus, I removed the word not out of disrespect (which you didn't imply), but the opposite, out of respect for the purity of action unclouded by personal judgment. I hope this clarifies.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
But the word is mentioned in the source, With many regards, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 08:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Interesting point. I don't have Francis Peters' book but I don't spot the word in USC's "Sahih Bukhari". It's a tight call and I understand other reviewers (and editors) concluding differently. As a writer, I prefer to avoid modifiers and let readers think out what happened rather then guiding them what to think. That said, alter it if you wish and I won't revert it.
I see from your page you practice wisdom and moderation, and I appreciate the dialogue.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! --UnicornTapestry (talk) 09:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The oppositional argument is beyond me. I added my 2¢.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that, but I understand when the personal remarks become excessive. I hope to see you again.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Palazzolo

Thank you for your help. Interesting that you know SA's Press can be as shoddy as the UK's. Or worse.

It depends which documentation is required.

Briefly - We have his conviction of September of 1985 in Switzerland, which was all he was ever convicted for, substantially. And even this was doubtful, as I will explain. It was for 2 and half years in prison and was confirmed, finally, in May 1994.

Bear in mind the politics behind this. Swiss banking is discovered dealing blood money. Which it has been doing for hundreds of years. They are determined that no Swiss will be convicted and luckily, in their midst, is Palazzolo, a Sicilian. Unfortunatley for them he only came on the scene (to run the fiduciary arm of one of the top 3 Swiss Banks) 9 months before he discovered that one of his inherited clients was linked with the Mafia. This the court agreed. Also they said he was in fear for his life, which is why he paid back their money, $6m. Yet still they convicted him. They had to.

Everything thereafter, coming out of Palermo in Sicily, was a hoax and, after umpteen court cases, has been disproven. And it goes on still. The next case is on 5/5/11 in Caltanisetta in Italy http://www.vrpalazzolo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Notificion-that-Appeal-Court-Caltanissetta-accepts-review-application5.pdf.

The essential point therefore is the Ne bis in Idem or Double Jeopardy principle, that you can't be tried for the same crime twice. The agreement between Italy and Switzerland on judicial matters, including Ne bis in Idem, was stipulated in September 1998 and only signed in June 2003. The prosecutor in Palermo gets round this by bringing "new evidence" which, time and again, is discredited. Antonino Guiffre, an Italian State witness, for example. See the letter from the Attorney General admitting that Giuffre yielded nothing - http://www.vrpalazzolo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Palermo-Court-23rd-March-2005-re-Giuffre7.pdf

I have court documents that I turn into PDF's and then post on Palazzolo's website, www.vrpalazzolo.com. Is that something, therefore, I can use as a reference? It's the real thing, but in the website.

I attempt to answer Don Calo's allegations etc directly, on his page. But he won't accept or acknowledge them. He did the same to Palazzolo's lawyers interjections. Just keeps on pushing his stuff, oblivious of Palazzolo's life or rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fircks (talk • contribs) 14:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. This is a tricky issue. Your main lever in this case is the first document for an appeal. The second document in itself isn't useful because outsiders (like me) don't know the scope of the searches.
I read the Italian Wikipedia page, which is short, cut and dried. It does not mention the appeal, and I suggest adding that sentence to the Italian article.
Regarding Palazzolo's web site, the problem is lack of independence. Every word could be true, but could also be self-serving. That doesn't mean it can't be used as a reference, but it has to read something like, "Mr. Palazzolo refutes this. (citation)" What you strongly need are independent references that can help verify your stance: books, newspapers, magazine articles, video documentaries, web sites, and especially pertinent legal documents such as court opinions, in any language. These are the burden of proof needed. Some of this may take a professional researcher. Do you have access to materials like these?
I'll post information on the Palazzolo talk page. I think the group is trying to balance fairness with suspicion, so I think you have a good chance of at least a compromise solution.
best wishes, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. You can rest assured that Palazzolo only ever was convicted finally (albeit vaguely) in Switzerland in 1985 and documentation will be produced, independantly of the website, as you suggest, to back it up 100%. The rest is stuff is from Palermo which never stops though it is never substansiated, etc. For the full story I will have to go into the corruption there and allude to the Swiss banking system and some of the shady characters there, but that is a herculean task and will emerge as a book. Berlusconi, I'm sure, can help us! He has a lot to say about his detractors that sounds a lot like Palazzolo, fulminating. My aim now is merely to stop Don Calo printing hearsay and inuendo (like Palazzolo "apparently" bribed Pik Botha with a black prostitute), which is actually all he has. I will get all this evidence to upload to wikipedia. Can one upload directly from a PDF? I will do some homework.

Many thanks again and kind regards

Fircks (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. We strive for truth and fairness. I think enough people are open enough to try to be fair to Sig. Palazzolo if you come up with evidence, documents listed above.
Yes, you can upload PDFs and graphics. I'm not practiced at it, but it's possible.
Best wishes. Let me know how things work out.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


Having put together all teh necessary documentation and legal proof - I have taken my argument to the Administrators Noticeboard as linked below. Is this the right way to go about getting a fair and transparent hearing for Palazzolo? Thanks and regards - Alexander Fircks (when I "sign" now it looks different to what it was before. Have I been blocked perhaps?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive679#Vito_Roberto_Palazzolo_et_al 41.3.128.156 (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC) 41.3.128.156 (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


Lost Palazzolo complaint

You have been helpful in regard to my case for Palazzolo, who is being maligned by Don Calo of Wikipedia. But whenever I post my case on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Vito_Palazzolo_and_Wikipedia.27s_unwitting_defamation_of_a_living_man, for example - it disappears shortly afterwards. Can you tell me what to do next? Wikipedia will not hear our case, it seems. Fircks (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Your initial complaint received attention here. I can tell you did something in arbitration, but it may have already been archived as may have the entries on the CoI notice board. Be assured that administrators are watching the Palazzolo article now.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi there I left a suggested BLP for Palazollo at this spot. Hope to hear from you in this regard. --Fircks (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Another edit

I don't understand why you accepted this edit. It's clearly unverified, it's poorly written, and contains weasel words. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I took the time to check the the BBC site to verify the program existed.[1] Reviewers wish to encourage participation while weeding out vandalism and obvious errors. I sometimes accept and then clean up an article when it's obvious someone's not wholly comfortable with English (as I did minutes ago), but for minor capitalisation errors as you pointed out, it's better to approve the contribution than reject the person's effort.
best wishes, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 08:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Geri Halliwell

I'm a wee bit puzzled why you accepted this. The information is correct, but the edit was a little messy. No porbs though as I've tidied it up and added it to the correct list. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Our job as reviewer is to catch obvious vandalism, but to allow factual information through and to be kind to newcomers. Sometimes if an edit is earnest but poorly formatted or has faulty grammar, I may clean it up myself or trust that a white knight like you will catch on that it needs to be tweaked. Glad you polished it. Thank you.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


Social Distortion

Hi there. Just letting you know that I've reverted the recent edit to Social Distortion that you accepted. The edit broke an existing reference, leaving a big red "Cite error: Invalid ref tag" across the top of the article, and breaking an existing reference. The relevance of the material the editor was attempting to add was questionable, with no supporting source, so I have not re-added it. Katherine (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Katherine. At first blush the update seemed bland, an internal link, but after studying it now, I see it took place inside a tag, which must have confused the parser. Good catch!
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Leah Culver

Hi UnicornTapestry. I noticed you tagged Leah Culver with a BLP prod, but the article had sources at the time: articles on TechCrunch and FastCompany. Am I missing something? Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 05:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You didn't miss anything; I did. I meant to tag it as non-notable and fat-fingered the wrong button. I'm still getting used to the patrol.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, OK. I'll go ahead and remove it then. Thanks! 28bytes (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Pages blanked by their author

Hi. If a page is completely blank, you need to have a look at the history. Often, as with Geoffrey Alexander Rowley-Conwy, 9th Baron Langford (b. 1912) just now, it has been blanked by its author, probably because he has seen a speedy or copyvio notice and realises it is inappropriate. In that case, don't tag it {{db-nocontent}} (though that is true) but {{db-author}} or {{db-g7}} author requests deletion, and there is no need to give the author a notice of speedy deletion. What is worse and often happens (but not what you did here) is when the author is given a vandalism warning for the blanking. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm new to patrol and stumble over these things.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, UnicornTapestry. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Proded articles

If you haven't read my latest message from the talk page of that one article, I'll repeat here. Please show me where on WP:Footy those clubs and that league have been mentioned. And you reverted the proded articles as "vandalism"? Must be a joke. Then there's your attempt at moving one of the articles to a different title citing "Specificity". Those articles like "Navy FC" were deleted before for non-notability. They remain non-notable to this date and you not only revert my attempt at prodding it as "vandalism", you keep it and rename it as the previous article that was deleted. It's funny that you have a user box that says, "This user doesn't know what the hell he's doing". Instead of it being funny or cute or whatever, it's actually very true! Banana Fingers (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I asked you to be kind to newbies and non-English editors. You chose to delete (actually revert) the message on the talk page rather than respond to it.
When you delete an entire nation's football league and every team in it, I have to question why. Your only mention beyond your opinion they weren't notable was that a page didn't have any links to it, which it clearly did previously.
Also, you fail to notify the original and other editors that you planned to delete the article.
Finally, when I saw you flagged for deletion the entire [[2011 LBC United Football League}Philippines league]] and their Air Force team and their Navy team and you did not further respond, I flagged them as vandalism.
To answer your question about specificity, I meant that Navy FC was too encompassing (what nation? what club? what league?) and I renamed it Philippine Navy FC.
best regards, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
About 2011 LBC United Football League. Agree with your ideas about renaming the article. If it survives, what name is best? I added references.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm inclined to omit the year from the title. Depending upon how the article grows, it can become the parent article for subsequent years.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I have added link due to following reasons:

  1. The article was about a person and related official website should be there.
  2. The website mentioned there did not related at all.

Regards--116.71.12.57 (talk) 12:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! And thanks for letting me know.
best regards, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi, I have made another change, can you kindly look into this.--116.71.12.57 (talk) 12:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Gohar Shahi was born on 25-11-1941 and died on 25-11-2001. [2]
  • He was founder of Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam only.[3] MFI was founded by Younas not gohar shahi.
  • I have noticed that both articles (MFI & Younas) supported by SPS sources.
  • Younas is an enemy of Gohar Shahi, he was sacked from Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam by Gohar Shahi [4].
  • Gohar Shahi was not controversial at all, this is Younas & MFI who are making effort to make him controversial, he never claim to being Imam Mehdi or anything, this is conspiracy of younas & MFI.[5]
Look forward to hearing on above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.12.57 (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Good, that's good practice, especially about someone living. (WP:BLP) Good job; thank you.
best regards, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
He's not living person.--116.71.12.57 (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Uh-oh. (reading) I see. The introduction gives no date of death. Can you source and fix that or at least narrow the window of disappearance? What a mystery!
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you help me for that, because you can do directly and I have not previlidge to do it directly.--116.71.12.57 (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're asking me to do. I put a temporary note in the introduction that his date of death or disappearance is unknown.
What would you wish me to do? What is your name? Have you considered registering?
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't tell my name as I am facing life threaths from MFI, but This article should have the true information, I couldn't register either, as MFI members dont let me do anything, all I want you to do is I can provide you the sources, can you make changes accordingly, you are a neutral person and they can't do anything wrong to you.--116.71.12.57 (talk) 12:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
If you provide sources, I'll be glad to look them over.
You don't have to use your real name. Make up something you like or admire or is meaningful to you… or something silly if you like. After several edits (10-50), you get full editing privileges.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestions, I will try to adapt one:
  • Gohar Shahi was born on 25-11-1941 and died on 25-11-2001. [6], is this hefty or not?
  • He was founder of Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam only.[7] MFI was founded by Younas not gohar shahi. Therefore, I want you to exclude any other movements except Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam. Is this source enough or not?

Thanks, --119.155.40.192 (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, got date and full citation in. That was a great reference. Moving on to the 2nd part now.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks,--119.155.40.192 (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Statement is in. Working up citation now. Very good references. You really should register, even under a nom de plume (pseudonym).
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, in the first para of introduction, you will see "he is being controversial,''''''", kindly remove this senctence, as he was not controversial at all. Moreover, use past tense as I can still see is instead of was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.155.40.192 (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, documented that quotation here. Those were excellent sources.
I changed the tense but not the part about being controversial; obviously he is a source of controversy, so it's a factual statement.
Good working with you! --UnicornTapestry (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
An afterthought: If you're concerned about your safety, adopting a pseudonym/alias would be beneficial. IP addresses can be traced to a single location. A nom de plume would make that much more difficult. Give that some consideration.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
You did not ponder upon it says that "He is controversial for being declared the Mehdi, which he didn't. Isn't it?--119.155.40.192 (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
(grin) I did, actually. The statement doesn't say he declared himself Mehdi. The passive voice doesn't indicate who made this declaration, only that someone other than him said this.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi UnicornTapestry, Thanks for your good edits on this subject. Just to fill you in, the IP editor here is a serial sockpuppeter and has previously identified himself as a an official within one of the cults that revere Shahi ("I am responsible to propagate and preach activities on Internet"). Anything that can improve these articles is definitely welcome, and your efforts are appreciated. I will, however, continue to block these IPs as soon as I see them as Iamsaa (talk · contribs) is effectively banned. Just wanted to make sure you're in the loop. Cheers, — Scientizzle 16:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I try to stick to the facts and avoid opinion. This helps.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

New page patrolling and speedy tagging

I promised you more advice about New Page Patrolling. Sorry for the delay, and for the random nature of these thoughts:

Read WP:CSD carefully, both the definitions and the list of WP:CSD#Non-criteria; also the useful advice from an experienced admin at WP:10CSD and WP:A7M. The speedy criteria are deliberately tightly drawn, and it's important to find the right one, because it will generate the right message for the author, and because if you can't, it probably means the page should not be speedied. It's on the whole better to use the more specific ones like {{db-band}} or {{db-person}}, which generate more specific reasons in the deletion log than the general {{db-a7}}.

There is such a flood of (to put it politely) garbage coming in that after a time on New Page Patrol it is unfortunately easy to get into a frame of mind where one's first reaction on looking at a new page is "How can I get rid of this?" If Wikipedia were a more regimented organization (Heaven forbid) I would make it a rule that everybody had to do some time on NPP but nobody was allowed to do too long, lest the iron enter into their soul. See WP:BEFORE for what should be considered before deletion. A "credible claim of importance or significance" is enough to escape A7, even if unsourced (tag with {{unreferenced}} and consider telling the author s/he'll need to provide them) - a lower standard than "notability".

Personal attacks - regrettably common. Blank the page and tag with {{db-attack}} which generates a suitably fierce message for the author, and puts it in a high-priority queue for admin attention.

Speedy tags that are often misused:

  • G1 (nonsense), intended only for "7#@c**x?'!+#" or "Yaaaaayyy LOL!!!", not bad English or confused writing or foreign text
  • G2 {{db-test}} test page
  • G3 {{db-hoax}}. Only if it's really blatant; if it would take more than 10 mins checking to be certain, better to tag the article with {{hoax}} which will bring others to investigate. If you have done some checking and are convinced enough for db-hoax, consider putting your reasons on the talk page to help the admin
  • G4 {{db-repost}} - only for where the page was previously deleted at an AfD (or other deletion discussion such as MfD). If the previous deletion was by PROD, it can't be reprodded and must go to AfD; if it was previously speedied and the same reason applies, re-speedy.
  • G11 advertisement, often misused on ages which are just a descrition of a firm. If A7 applies, it is preferable, otherwise the author removes a few promotional adjectives and reposts it, and is aggrived to be told "Ah, but now we get you under A7!"
  • A3 where the author blanked his own page - should be G7
  • A1 or A3 applied too soon - a hesitant newbie often puts in just the title or a first sentence, a speedy notice flashes up within a minute, and the newbie goes away dishearteed and complains elsewhere how unfriendly Wikipedia is. Wait at least 10 - 15 minutes before applying one of those tags. You can make a note of the page name on a scratch pad and come back to it.

Common non-speediable pages are those about newly published or unpublished books, newly-invented religions or words or philosophies, unsourced original essays. You might think PRODs are useless because the authors will just remove them, but if the PROD gives its reasons clearly the author will often understand and not contest it. Examples: "this cites no sources to indicate notability and appears to be original research" or "there is no indication that this unpublished book is notable to the standard of WP:Notability (books)" or "Wikipedia is not for drinking games made up one day". WP:NFT is an excellent page about the sort of thing we don't want which I am always pointing people to.

Foreign-language articles - more tomorrow. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Pending revision on Mahinda Rajapaksa

Hi! Do you speak Tamil? If you do, please explain what "pehh pundai" means and why searching it on google leads to dubious porn downloads? If you don't, then why did you accept this pending revision? Yoenit (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Speaking Tamil is not a requirement in the English Wikipedia version, but I assume you know something I don't. Tamil is not one of the languages Google translates.
When I performed a Google search(#1 below), it turned up nothing, zip. Doing a Bing search (#2 below) turned up one hit. Now that you brought this to my attention, an unfiltered search across all languages (#3 below) (not .uk) brings up a few items, including articles about a teacher in Pennsylvania and the number 1 article is called Tamil Stories with hearts and bows. The first few items still wouldn't set off red flags for me any more than 'pussycat' or 'cockscomb' would.
My task as a reviewer is to prevent obvious vandalism. People will sometimes sneak things in, but we're the initial gatekeepers and trust that those knowledgeable about a topic will catch the rest.
Google links are on the Wikipedia spam block list, but feel free to test them yourself:
  1. www.google.com/cse?cx=013269018370076798483%3A8eec3papwpi&ie=UTF-8&q=%22pehh+pundai%22&sa=Search
  2. www.bing.com/search?q=%22pehh+pundai%22&form=OSDSRC
  3. www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-SA:official#sclient=psy&num=10&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&site=webhp&q=%22pehh+pundai%22&aq=&aqi=&aql=f&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.1,or.&fp=9d851c902103f4cb
kind regards, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Foreign-language articles

{{db-a2}} is only for the (fairly rare) case where the article is a cut-and-paste from another Wikipedia, the point being that doing it that way loses the attribution history. The warning notice it generates points the author to WP:TRANSLATE where the proper procedure is explained.

Otherwise, the best tag to use is {{notenglish}}, with the language specified if you can identify it, eg {{notenglish|Spanish}}. Google translate is helpful for identifying languages, eg it can tell Arabic from Farsi. If you specify the language, the resulting template gives you a link to Google Translate (and if the result is gibberish, you've probably got the wrong language). The result is of variable standard, but often enough to tell you that the page can be tagged {{db-person}} or {{db-nocontent}} or some other speedy. It helps to leave the notenglish tag in place so the admin can get a one-click look at the translation.

If not obviously speediable, put a sentence or two into Google to see whether it is copyvio, and if it qualifies tag it {{db-copyvio}}.

Otherwise, the notenglish template generates a message for you to put on WP:PNT, the list of pages needing translation. There, somebody who knows the language may decide to translate it, or PROD it, or do something else. If it stays on PNT for two weeks without getting fixed, it gets deleted.

There is a useful list at WP:PNT/T of phrases, many bilingual, for you to put on the article author's talk page to point him to his own language WP - many people don't know there are any others. I find it curiously satisfying to tell someone "kontributet tuaja jane te mirepritura ne wikipedian shqiptare." Those templates have an oddity: what they generate ends with a newline, so you need to put your four-tilde signature immediately after the closing } - if you leave a space it comes out funny.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Stubs

Hi, When you add the {{stub}} tag to an article, please don't also add the Category:Stubs as you did at Erkan Meriç. The category should never be added directly, as it is added through the stub template. Thanks. PamD (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. I think I added that in another instance, too. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Your idea

Hi there,

I need to know your idea about the article I have created recently. Unfortunately it has been nominated for this AfD. I am trying to rescue it. Regards, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 04:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
First thing, register your vote to keep on the AfD page. I notice User:Alpha Quadrant seemed to think it important enough to rescue, but he hasn't voted yet. The other good news is that the nominator for deletion didn't specify speedy deletion, which implies you have room to maneuver.
Articulate why you believe the page should be rescued. You've partly answered that it's important for foreign manufacturers to be aware of it. I think it would be easier to justify if it was part of a larger article about manufacturing requirements for exportation to Iran. In other words, would it make sense if ISIRI 13139 was a section within a larger article
Export to Iran
Finally, if the vote appears to be going against you and you don't want to lose the information, then 'userfy' the page and notify the AfD page that you've done that with a userfy notice. Once you notified them of your intentions, rename/move the page to make it a subpage of your user page. The new name (path) would look something like:
*** in fact ***/ISIRI 13139
On your user page, you would access it with [[/ISIRI 13139]]
good luck! --UnicornTapestry (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Nice comment indeed ! I really enjoyed. Thank you. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 03:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. It looks like the article's a keeper.
You might consider creating a project that explains laws and regulations.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Navy FC

A tag has been placed on Navy FC, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

This useless redirect remains after a rename to a more specific topic name. Thanks.

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, 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. UnicornTapestry (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


A tag has been placed on Navy FC, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

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. UnicornTapestry (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I approve. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Norby Test

Eric Norby (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your support. I was hoping from some such help. Yes I would like help, and the ability to have it discussed in an intellectual manner. I do not know how to attempt publishment in any way, other than here, although I've tryed a little. How would I go about putting it into a subsection in my discussion section, yet get some sort of link to it so people will notice it and make comment? What publication would be interested in such a viewpoint? It was unfortunate that it was secdualed for deletion before I got your suggestions, as I would have retracted it my self after reading them.

Thanks again. You are striving to be constructive, rather than condeming. thanks Eric Norby (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I saw the bind you were in. Yes, it's too late to userfy your article (i.e, save the contents by making it a subpage of your user page), but if you need the contents, some administrators can retrieve the information for you. (See immediately above.)
The good part is understanding how Wikipedia works: Articles have to be (a) sourced elsewhere and (b) be notable. That means you must publish it elsewhere first, say, in a journal, a trade magazine, or a web site, for example. Flesh out your theory and get comments. Then, once the concept is established, bring it to Wikipedia.
Although computers have been programming computers to one degree or another for half a century, you may have unique ideas. However, the more interesting part you propose is the Norby Test, rather like the ELIZA effect test (and others). Flesh that out in print or on-line and see if it takes root.
To answer your question about making a subpage of your own, the easiest way at this point is to put something like this on your user page:
[[/my subpage]]
When you click on it, you'll be asked if you want to create a new page. Once that page is created, unless it contains something egregious, administrators should leave it alone. In other words, you own it. (See examples on my user page, like /WiP.)
Ask if you have more questions. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I added a subpage to my user page for the (How do I make a link to it from outside? >>>>) [[Eric Norby/Norby Test]]

Is there a legal/allowed way of putting a link to it somewhere else, such as at the bottom links on the Turing Test page? Is that OK? So that experts can be encouraged to enjoy a discussion on the idea? Eric Norby (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:US Tour of Palestinian Activists

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:US Tour of Palestinian Activists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. 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. UnicornTapestry (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk page exists without article. Make it so. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Kevin mckiernan

Hello UnicornTapestry. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Kevin mckiernan, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: plausible redirect, especially for the newbie who created the article. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 16:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Categorization

Categories such as Category:Articles needing cleanup and Category:Articles needing attention should not be directly applied to an article, as you did in this edit. The appropriate maintenance templates should be used instead. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 00:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Wasn't clear how to handle that. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 08:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Feast of the Hunter’s Moon

I responded to your merger proposal of Black Prairie and Feast of the Hunter’s Moon. I find the proposal completely inappropriate. I have expanded the album article. Please consider removing the merger proposal. Thanks. See: WP:COMMON.--Tainter (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the lengthy delay in response as I was travelling and not easily reachable. With the expansion, I agree the article now fits within the boundaries.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Editing of ANI Archives

[8] Probably an oversight on your part as archives shouldn't be changed? --NeilN talk to me 12:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Ach! You're right. Careless of me. Apologies. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Palazzolo

It's that hoary old chestnut again, Palazzolo. The trail has gone dead again so I thought I would contact you to see where to go to next. I have done the rounds and while I am conscious that I might occasionally bark up the wrong tree, I seem to have made no headway. See my approach to the editors at NPOV & Palazzolo, where I list some of the places where this discussion has been ongoing. I emailed the Foundation, but to no avail. I sent in my complaint to Reliable Sources Likewise on Palazzolo Talk.

Wikipedia should answer me soon, I presume.

Can you help?

Kind regards

--Fircks (talk) 10:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I followed the threads you posted (although I couldn't find the WP:RSN), but it looks like you did a thorough and reasonable job. I had to re-read wiki rules about reliable sources to sort out court documents. As I read it, accusatory documents aren't permitted, but judges' rulings are, at least how I read it. I'm not sure everyone agrees with my interpretation, but it seems common sense.
I commend your reasoned approach in these forums. You've gathered some support and in the meantime, you are certainly becoming a wiki expert!
For your book, I can recommend a good research editor in SA if you're interested and provide Wikipedia an eMail address (and if the researcher can take the case). Other than that, I think you've gone above and beyond. I'm impressed and look forward to how this works out.
Good job and good luck. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


Many thanks for your kind remarks. You have been consistently helpful. And living proof of what can be achieved with polite consideration.

Would a research editor help my case with Wikipedia? In which case yes, please, can I have details. You say you would provide Wikipedia with an email address. Of the editor? and what for? RSN should be at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_95#Vito_Roberto_Palazzolo

My next question is, given that I have had no response from NPOV, where do I go next?

How do you become a wiki editor and what do you get for it? Perhaps it is a charitable thing.

Again, I appreciate your help.

--Fircks (talk) 11:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yes, editing is sort of a charitable thing and a way of leaving a bit of yourself behind in a sort of (digital) cosmic spirit way. To be sure, some come with political, religious, or other agendas, but focusing on facts and 'truth', a kind of pride and purity can be found– not that I'm often successful.
Thanks for the RSN link; I see now and it's excellently done. My original thought was in two parts: (a) asking for 'adoption', sort of a sponsorship from an experienced administrator who knows the ropes and (b) an outside researcher or research editor to help nail down facts in the case.
Regarding (a), you've impressed me by grappling with the Wiki bureaucracy, seeking help and moving ahead unemotionally and on target. You've moved far ahead of most ordinary editors. Regarding (b), you also have a strong handle on the case, so I'm less certain of a researcher's value. A research editor is kind of a paperwork detective who tracks down resources for documentation and argument. However, you seem to have more and more at your fingertips.
I'm not sure where to advise to go next, especially as much of this is pending. You've sparked questions and it's clear to me that while court filings, depositions, and affidavits can be one-sided, a judgment or court order should provide a solid referential foundation. The fact of a hearing or acceptance of appeal should be allowed if only in passing, something like "An appeal hearing is set for ___."[ref]
I don't know anything about the Wiki Foundation and I regret I can't advise you how to proceed. However, you've been respectfully asking for advice and people are happily giving it. I admire your persistence that might grind down lesser mortals.
Keep me posted. Kind regards, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 05:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


Thank you again and sorry for asking you so many questions, which, on the plus side, means you're a damn good editor.

Editing - I'm no saint but can see the compelling desire to nurture the illusive truth. Without which are useless. I will sign up for it, when the dust settles.

Sponsorship - I have moved up through Wikipedia's gears and tried to cover all aspects, but still have no response. Meanwhile Don Calo's BLP lies intact. How could I "adopt" an administrator? I could use a hand, certainly.

Researcher - No need for an researcher, I agree, as I will know as much as anyone.

There must be someone at Wikipedia who can adjudicate fairly on this? The problem is that the BLP as it is is defamatory. What have people done in the past when their BLP's have been one sided, or slanderous? There must have been a few. I'll be writing a book about Palazzolo's odyssey, and Wikipedia, so much a part of our digital lives, will comprise at least a chapter.

--Fircks (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's beyond my experience where to go next, beyond the Foundation suggestion. On the other hand, some of the cases you started remain open. Your low-key approach has at least opened doors.
About adoption, the way that works is that an experienced person adopts someone less experienced, but you're rapidly gaining experience for yourself. Check out WP:Adopt-a-User.
Wikipedia is part of digital and real lives!
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I posted an opinion on the BLP Notice board. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Romeo and Juliet films

Category:Romeo and Juliet films, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. Mike Selinker (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello UnicornTapestry! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:UnicornTapestry/Archive_2011&oldid=1078608285"