User talk:Bookworm857158367

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Archiving[edit]

Hello Bookworm, probably you wanted to create your archive at User_talk:Bookworm857158367/Archive 1. Regards --Oxymoron83 23:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you want me to delete your now created archive, so that you are able to move Talk:Bookworm857158367/Archive 1 there, this will preserves the page history at the proper place? Regards --Oxymoron83 23:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Done, I think it's now how you wanted it in the first place :) --Oxymoron83 01:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK next update[edit]

Sorry that I undid your clearing on the next update, but I was just beginning to credit the articles from the round that you removed. I'm done crediting now, so you can add the next update if you wish. Royalbroil 06:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Separate issue, same subject[edit]

It made it in. See this edit. I suppose you're on one of the US time zones, so it probably was added and replaced while you were asleep (it has happened to me, too). Daniel Case (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • actually, i don't think that's the case - if it were, those articles would all be appearing in the DYK archive by now, and they're not. J. Van Meter (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I might have forgotten to add them to the archive, then. Will do. Daniel Case (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. The update after me was done by another admin who probably didn't realize the hooks hadn't been archived (this is done manually, not automatically). So, believe me, they were on the main page all right (you can review the history at T:DYK), just during the early morning hours US time. Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Space after ellipsis[edit]

When you moved El Buscón from here to here, you added a space after the ellipsis. That is, "...that" became "... that". Although there is no formal rule about a space after an ellipsis, there is an informal standard, and we get complaints at WP:ERRORS when we forget. I suppose it would be OK if all the hooks had a space after the ellipsis, but adding the space just once in a while is what draws complaints. I removed the space. I also removed similar spaces on the Main Page a few hours ago (but I didn't look to see who inserted them). Art LaPella (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

dyk[edit]

Updated DYK query On 14 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Susy Clemens, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Archtransit (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Romanov Remains[edit]

It would appear that the preliminary report of 22 January 2008 is based on credible scientific analysis of the remains of Alexis and Anastasia/Marie. I would suggest that this information remain undisturbed until the release of the final details later this year. I hope you will respect this. Already there has been an attempt by some person to remove such details. They need to realise removing verified information is not acceptable. I hope you will support this whatever your feelings may be on Anna Anderson. Finneganw 15:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I came here to thank you, Bookworm, for your revised edits to the preliminary report which are actually verifiable. Just to address the point made above, the portion I was attempting to delete was a violation of WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL section 3, dealing with future history, because the section included speculation as to the meaning of the results. --Veritas (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK help[edit]

Thanks for adding stuff to the update. Would you like to help out with the notifications (the real pain of this ... grrr)? Daniel Case (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

Hey. If I go and update the main page, would you be able to handle the credits? I don't have time to do both today. Thanks, Wizardman 13:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, update's been done. Thanks for helping out. Wizardman 15:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow you were quick ... I was trying to help but you got there first Victuallers (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


dyk ...my turn[edit]

Updated DYK query On 29 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Catherine Dolgorukov, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Victuallers (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

Updated DYK query On 31 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Grand Duchess Alexandra Alexandrovna of Russia, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congrats! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK:State Hydraulic Works (Turkey)[edit]

Hi Bookworm! Thanks so much for your contribution. Cheers. CeeGee (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Calvin Coolidge[edit]

A few months late perhaps, congradulations on getting Calvin Coolidge featured. Cheers, Basketballone10 02:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth Siddal[edit]

Sorry, if I interfered with your modification of Elizabeth Siddal, I thought you had already finished it. Now I understand how want to have the layout of the references. Best regards --Cyfal (talk) 07:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Snezana (name)[edit]

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Snezana (name), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Snezana (name). скоморохъ 13:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Goebbels children[edit]

Where is the Soviet autopsy report to be found? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Why[edit]

are you deleting some dyk candidates from the list? Editorofthewiki 03:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries would probably clear up this confusion. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Accum[edit]

Thanks for taking some time to look at the article. Bwwm (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your DYK![edit]

Updated DYK query On 24 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Antonietta Meo, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations and keep up the good work! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Rais, Martyr[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

A tag has been placed on Rais, Martyr requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 15:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Rais, Martyr[edit]

What exactly made you think that an article about an Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic saint, with a reference provided, is not notable? --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • This is what i would like to call a border borderline case. Personally i doubt that the WP:BIO criteria are met, since the references provided for this article are not exactly Neutral. Then again, i merely tagging pages for CSD, by which rationale its better to tag one page extra, then one page to little. In fact, i got to admit that i was interested in what the action of the reviewing administrator would be, as i know of no specific ruling for these cases(If a tag is rejected, the history always sites what rules apply). Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 15:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • After Re-Reading the article, i removed the speedy tag. There is simply no way this is warranted in its current form. Sorry for the trouble! Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 15:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A present from Baldy[edit]

Russian-Matroshka no bg.jpg Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gifThe Russian barnstar
For your outstanding work on adding valuable content related to late 19th/early 20th century Russian biographies and any other biographies which appeared in DYK's. The Bald One is proud of you. Keep it up! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 22:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Metrophanes, Chi Sung[edit]

Updated DYK query On 2 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Metrophanes, Chi Sung, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Greg Sanders Article[edit]

I was going through various CSI history pages to try and scoop out a vandal who's been hitting alot of the character pages and on the Greg Sanders page I saw that you made a number of edits to revert "Gregory" back to "Greg". If I recall correctly, in "The Ultimate CSI" his name is printed as Gregory. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's what it says. I'm going to check out the book and revert it back if it is indeed "Gregory". Please post any comments concerning this subject on my talk page. Yours truly, Broadway4life155 (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Anna Anderson latest vandalism[edit]

The latest culprit, 68.etc., whose vandalism you have thankfully reverted, has been warned about his/her behaviour previously. It would appear it is time for them to be blocked as a user for a time as they don't get the message. What do you think Bookworm? Finngeanw 05:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Longfellow[edit]

Could you explain why "The Children's Hour" is so important that you deem it necessary to include it in the lede? As the lede is supposed to sum up the article, the article should mention this poem to merit inclusion in the lede. It does not... I'd also suggest that three works cover enough ground in that opening paragraph and, it seems to me, the most well-known works are the best option. I'm having a hard time seeing why you want to push for it so much and I don't want to be involved with an edit war, so I figured I'd ask. Thanks! --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You'll excuse my bias as I'm not familiar with the poem (and I'm sorta protective of the article because it took substantial work to get it to GA status). Might I recommend we find a way to mention it specifically in the body of the article? Even if not in the lede, it does seem to merit some kind of mention in the article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I for one tend to think of "The Skeleton in Armor" pretty quickly when I think of Longfellow. But, maybe our exposure to him has changed over generations? To answer your question, I currently wear neither of those hats! --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Allegra Byron[edit]

I looked at your new reference, and couldn't find any reference to "murder" in it, only a reference to an "executioner". So I couldn't use your preferred hook. I promoted the article with your other hook instead. If there'd been more time, we might have discussed it some more, but in my experience once a hook is approved it tends to get used, and I figured you'd like to have your article featured in the number one spot, which would not be assured if I left it to someone else. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 06:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

Updated DYK query On 5 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Allegra Byron, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel (talk) 11:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

Hi, Bookworm857158367, you know I love this article, always have. Sadly I don't think Allegra Byron was eligible for DYK because it would have had to be a five-fold expansion. I'll leave a note at DYK or main page. -Susanlesch (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

We're okay! Somebody at DYK goofed; only one other person noticed afterwards. Good luck to you on your articles. I still remember from WikiProject Biography. -Susanlesch (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

Updated DYK query On 9 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Claire Clairmont, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cirt (talk) 06:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:1916paley.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:1916paley.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Allesandro de Medici[edit]

"Acknowledged" by who? Certainly not by him, nor by most historians, i would have thought. Like the early medieval Scottish King nicknamed the Black, a great pile of speculation has been loaded onto a nickname. Johnbod (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No doubt i will some time - there is one, maybe more, modern historian who has taken the nickname/gossip seiously, and a whole pile of black studies and other writers who have followed up on him, but I don't think most specialist Renaissance historians are very convinced. The portraits are supposed to be prime evidence, and they aren't terribly convincing, are they? Johnbod (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, this guy (quoted by an opponent on one of your refs) certainly is an art historian:"In the only reference to the Duke's color in the entire 173-page catalogue of the Philadelphia exhibit, Karl Strehlke, the curator and organizer writes, "Some scholars have claimed that Alessandro's mother was a North African slave. This cannot be confirmed, however, and the text of a letter that she wrote to her son in 1529 suggests that she was an Italian peasant from Lazio." " It is misleading to treat the matter as generally accepted. Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I've copied it all to the article talk page. Johnbod (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy as it is for now, & may research it more some time later. Thanks for the change! Of course Moorish opens a whole new load of issues itself.... Ludovico Sforza "il Moro" is another of these. Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

Updated DYK query On 15 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bia de' Medici, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

I never heard of death masks before - it's interesting! --Royalbroil 15:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

Updated DYK query On 16 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Giulia de' Medici, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cirt (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:1916paley.jpg}[edit]

Thank you for uploading Image:1916paley.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Lili Dehn Picture[edit]

I am new to editing on Wikipedia. I have several possible edits for the Lili Dehn page, but the most important one is that the picture displayed... is not her.


I would be happy to send you severl picture of her. She is the other woman other than the tsarina in that picture from which you excerpted the picture. Gfulda (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Anthroponymy[edit]

I've seen your helpful additions to name articles, and am inviting you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy, which is seeking to improve the consistency and quality of articles about human names.

I note that you added information on the name to Amalia, which is a disambiguation page. As there is a separate article about this name, Amalia (given name), this info is not needed there as well, especially not the category, so I have reverted those two edits. There is some recent discussion and guidance about such edits at the end of the project talk page.

Keep up the good work! - Fayenatic (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Anastasia[edit]

Just curious about why you undid my change about the DNA testing results and then added back the same information. Was it a problem in form that I need to address? I have no problem with the final result, since it seems identical to what I added. Rknasc (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Florence name article[edit]

I saw you helped fix up the Florence (name) article and I thought you might be interested in helping out the Anthroponymy wikiproject. The project is still in its infancy and could use all the help it can get. Remember (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, you already are a member. Well, thanks for joining and keep up the hard work!!!

Grand Duke Andrew Vladimirovich of Russia[edit]

It's normal that a nominator of a page move add their own view:

Support as nominator

This isn't a vote (since people have to give justifications), but it does allow a closing administrator to quickly see if there is a consensus. Noel S McFerran (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


Proposed deletion of Aidan rhyming trend[edit]

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Aidan rhyming trend, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Hammer Raccoon (talk) 11:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There is one reference, which does not imply notability. In my view, the fact that more people are calling their children Aidan, or something that sounds like Aidan, is not deserving of an encyclopaedia article. As you objected to the prod, I shall take this to AFD. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry you object to the AFD, but I'm not the only who has seen fit to delete this before, and I think a community discussion is the best way to settle this. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
All further discussion would probably best be carried out over at the AFD. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking my opinion. I recommend making a table of the statistics, and merging the article into Aidan. The rhyming name articles should then have a link to that section in Aidan.
As for the significance of the phenomenon: just because one observer called it a millenial megatrend doesn't make it so. I heard a famous journalist explain his job as "first select, then exaggerate." - Fayenatic (talk) 06:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note of support about the Aidan rhyming trend article. I am disappointed that so many people seem to think it deserves immediate deletion. They seem to have a very different view of what "encyclopaedic" means. When people delete my content and tell me it is un-encyclopaedic, I find it maddening. Don't let them get you down. You've got a wheen of Barnstars to prove what great work you do. Preacherdoc (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's gone. Them's the breaks, I guess. Virtual backslaps to you in abundance. Preacherdoc (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:OWN[edit]

Please read that. You don't need to post on my talk page so often. Charles 02:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Your way is NOT how it is done on Wikipedia. Read WP:OWN as suggested before trying to assert ownership over article content with what you think is "right". The fact of the matter is Nicholas II is not first referred to as Nikolai II, regardless of what you think. I dare you to go change that article lest you automatically abandon that argument. Charles 02:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Pistolkors vs. Pistohlkors[edit]

Hello, Bookworm. What do you think about h in the spelling of this family's name? --Worobiew (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of most popular given names for twins in the United States[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

I have nominated List of most popular given names for twins in the United States, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most popular given names for twins in the United States. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 02:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Charles[edit]

Please see [1] and [2]. --Law Lord (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, get over it. Don't come to people's pages being nasty, Law Lord, and expect to be received warmly. Good day, Bookworm. Charles 17:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Anna Demidova.jpg}[edit]

Thank you for uploading Image:Anna Demidova.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Botkinlast.jpg}[edit]

Thank you for uploading Image:Botkinlast.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Cosmo and Damian[edit]

Hi, I think you meant AD, not BC. I changed it. Bearian (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


Ryan St. Anne[edit]

Perhaps this is not the place to post this, but I do not know how to get in touch with the one whom I presume has edited this site. I have in my possession the sealed document attesting to the date of Ryan's consecration as a bishop, and want it placed here.. How do I do it?

When I mentioned that I have the document in my possession, this statement was removed. Well, how to I get a scanned document onto the Wikipedia Site?

+Dennis McCormack

Mary Shelley[edit]

User:Awadewit and I have at last put Mary Shelley up for Peer Review. I would appreciate your comments, if you have time, as I know you are interested in the subject. We're hoping to go for FAC, all being well. (As I am interested in Claire Clairmont, I made sure she was fairly treated, unlike in some of the biographies of Mary Shelley.) qp10qp (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The Great Hunger: the "favourite hate" name poll[edit]

You participated in a recent straw poll at Talk:The Great Hunger on a possible name change. This is a friendly notice that I have opened another straw poll, this time to find the names that editors are most opposed to. If you know of anybody who did not vote in the last straw poll, but who has an interest in the name debate, please feel free to pass this on. Scolaire (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yakov Yurovsky[edit]

It has already been established in Yakov Yurovsky's talk page that he was not a murderer. He acted legally and remained a senior Soviet official until his death. --81.77.90.237 (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Anna Anderson[edit]

Please desist in your so-called revisions to the Anna Anderson page. You are not improving it in the slightest. What you have been doing is removing verifiable quotes. That is not the wikipedia way. In fact it could be seen quite clearly as vandalism. In fact what you are doing is revealing yourself clearly as a pro-Anna Anderson fanatic removing information that clearly shows she was a total fraud. I had thought much better of you. Finneganw, 12.01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Remember the Allegra Byron article?[edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Or how could you forget!!? I haven't been around too much lately, but wow you have. You progressed so fast and you were so proficient. Go write a book already! Stubbleboy (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Bookworm - May I nominate you as an admin?? Stubbleboy (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Administrators don't remove verified information, to suit an unexplained agenda, in contravention of wikipedia policy on a regular basis. Finneganw 12.21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Anna Anderson[edit]

Hi. Just to let you know, Finneganw (talk · contribs) reverted your edit again, which involved you reverting that user's edit. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 16:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Tsesarevich vs. Tsarevich[edit]

According to Wikipedia, Tsarevich is a title used for any son of the Tsar, while Tsesarevich is a substantive title used only for the eldest son of the Tsar, and that's what Alexei was. Alexei, Tsarevich of Russia is as wrong as Charles, Prince of the United Kingdom. It should be either Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich of Russia or Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsesarevich of Russia (the other option follows Wikipedia's naming conventions). Surtsicna (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry for moving the page with discussion. I thought that users intended to distinguish his status as heir by moving the article to X, Title of Y. If you disagree with using Tsesarevich, then I propose Grand Duke Alexei Nikolaevich of Russia since his sisters are Grand Duchess X of Y. Surtsicna (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Then move him to Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich of Russia! Just get rid of the current title, which is the most inappropriate. Surtsicna (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
You cannot go by the most familiar name if that name is factually inaccurate. Princess Diana is the most familiar name for Lady Diana Spencer, yet we cannot call her Princess Diana because she was princess by marriage - thus Princess Charles. 'Name, Title of Place' is format used for substantive titles and tsarevich is not a substantive title (another example is Prince William of Wales, who cannot be called William, Prince of Wales). That article needs to be moved immediately either to Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich of Russia or Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsesarevich of Russia. Surtsicna (talk) 10:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong[edit]

That was TOTALLY CONTSRUCTIVE YOU DIMWIT and It's true so shut up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonne Nuit Bijou (talkcontribs) 02:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:RUSSIA roll call and your input required[edit]

Privet. You are receiving this message as you were listed on the membership list of WP:RUSSIA at Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Members. Recent times has seen minimal activity within WikiProject Russia, and there is an attempt to re-invigorate the project and have it become more organised into a fully-fledge functioning project, with the aim of increasing the quality of Russia-related articles across English wikipedia.

As we don't know which listed members are active within the project and Russia-related article, all listed members are receiving this message, and are requested to re-affirm their active status on Russia-related article by re-adding their username to Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Members by adding:

# {{User|YOURUSERNAME}}

to the membership list. You may also like to place {{User Russian Project}} on your userpage, as this will also place you in Category:WikiProject Russia members.

There is also an active proposal on the creation of a single WP:RUSSIA project. The proposal can be viewed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russia#Proposal_for_overhaul_and_creation_of_a_single_WP:RUSSIA_project, and your comments and suggestions are welcomed and encouraged at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia/Proposal.

We all look forward to your continued support of WP:RUSSIA and any comments you may have on the proposal. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 04:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Romanovicon.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Romanovicon.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Hello, Bookworm857158367. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Anna Anderson. Thank you. Cenarium Talk 02:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ananias Dare & Eleanor Dare[edit]

I redirected these because they're only notable as the parents of Virginia Dare, and all the content in both articles which isn't already duplicated in other articles amounts to about three sentences - see Virginia Dare#Parents. 66.152.166.101 (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with your redirection of these articles, which should have been discussed on the talk page first. Eleanor Dare was the subject of the Eleanor Dare Stones back in the 1940s; there's an ongoing discussion about the ancestry and genealogy of Ananias Dare. Do not redirect them again without consensus, please. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Where can I find the discussion about the ancestry and genealogy of Ananias Dare? 66.152.166.101 (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Revert[edit]

Please explain your reasons for reverting my image change on Mary (given name) with a clear rationale. I had discussed that on the talk page. Else I will have to revert your change. Thanks History2007 (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I did not say the art in itself was wrong, for there is very little wrong or right in art. But that the image did not convey reverence, as the caption suggested. So there is an inconsistency.
And your statement that "I prefer it" seems to imply that others need to follow your personal tastes - not a Wikipedia policy really. But it is not really a question of taste but logic here. I am not attached to the Boticelli, but think the image and the caption should match. My suggestion: Please find another image yourself on commons that matches the caption by implying reverence and use that. Then the inconsistency will vanish. Else I can try several images. I have seen that you like to do reverts elsewhere, but let us not make this world war 4, and arrive at a peaceful resolution by your selecting another image that you feel works, but also matches the caption. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, I will follow the suggestion you made on my talk page. Keep the Rosetti image on the page, but attach the Boticelli to the infobox text that says reverence. Thank you for being cooperative on this issue. History2007 (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Dec 2008[edit]

Merry Christmas

History2007 (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Maria Rasputin[edit]

I see that you created an article on Maria Rasputin. Was Maria's birthdate of 27 March in the Old Style or New Style? Thank you.--jeanne (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't template the regulars[edit]

Please, Don't template the regulars.

I may have made a mistake, but getting {{uw-vandalism1}} on the talk page after four years of serving Wikipedia is terribly insulting. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Anna Anderson[edit]

Is there any chance you can stop by and give your opinion on an appropriate dispute resolution for this article? You were a great voice of reason there once and turned a horrific article into a good one. Maybe you will have some luck there where the other regulars have not. Trusilver 20:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Maria Rasputin[edit]

This is to notify you as the primary editor that as part of the GA Sweeps the article, Maria Rasputin has been reassessed and found to need some work to maintain its GA status. The reassessment can be found here. Any questions or concerns can be posted on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Anna Anderson[edit]

I would hope you will have the sense to avoid further vandalising the Anna Anderson page placing in inaccurate information and discredited sources. You should be aware that wikipedia does not support the inclusion of discredited material in the form of references. It is fact that Anderson was not Grand Duchess Anastasia. The discredited works of Rathlef, Kurth and Botkin have no place at wikipedia. They have all been proven fraudulent. If you wish to be an obsessive Anderson supporter, please use the sandbox. Finneganw 00:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

There really is no 'controversy' over whether or not she was FS. Major news agencies such as AP and UPI and their affiliates all state as a fact in their reporting that she was FS. If this were not a steady fact they would not/could not do that. The scientists who worked on the original DNA testing have said that as the years went by they were more certain, not less, that AA was indeed FS. All there is on the 'other side' is a few people who just can't accept that a poor person passed herself off as a rich person, but that is nothing to go on scientifically to challenge the DNA. I know some don't want to believe their relatives were tricked by a peasant, or that they themselves were, but it did happen. It was a mixture of human error and wishful thinking blinding them to obvious negative factors, this is evident in the fact that the younger generation of some of the supporters did not accept her as their parents had, most famously Dmitri Leuchtenberg and Gerta von Kleist. This shows that the parents, who were more clinging to and emotionally tied to the old ways and days, were more easily led to believe something they wanted so badly to be true. Another factor is that she had a very bad attitude and yelled all the time. People who wanted to believe this took it as her 'regal haughtiness' and if she misbehaved it was because she was 'traumatized' by 'Ekaterinburg.' FS, being a mentally deranged and injured person anway, fell right into the mold since she had scars and had been disturbed psychologically. We also cannot rule out the possibility that some who claimed to believe her may have only been helping her for a cut of the alleged fortune. But the bottom line is, we can't state in a historically accurate article that there is some question she may not be FS, because that would mean either some people believe the 0.001% chance she wasn't, or they believe the DNA was wrong/tampered with, which falls into the realm of conspiracy theories. Since there is no evidence or other suspect to challenge the overwhelming proof that she was FS, it should stand in the article that she was. Even adding 'some supporters question' only makes those supporters look like loonies to those who read the article. Anyway, the ending to this is coming soon. I read online that a new book is coming out next year with much new information recently discovered that will explain everything about her story and prove she was FS.Aggiebean (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes won't Kurth just hate that one! It will be so easy to deal with it all as the evidence is plain for all to see. I guess Kurth's discredited book won't even fetch 2 cents at amazon.com then. Finneganw 00:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes and I can't wait. I don't know for sure what all is all in the book, but it appears someone finally got the Schanzkowska family to talk, revealing old family secrets, letters and photos that unmistakeably tie AA to her true identity as FS. They probably also have Berenberg-Gossler's papers and manuscript he was writing at the time of his death. They likely have much more than we ever realized was out there. I always thought the info would have been there all along, but unfortunately those who have written about AA have been on her side and would not tell things that go against her. It's nice to finally know someone is on the case who will expose her as FS once and for all.Aggiebean (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to your message on my page-Did you ignore what Finneganw showed you that the mod told us? He said a lot of things are written by a lot of people but if they are discredited and proven to be wrong by other sources, they are not welcome in the article and cannot be used. This means we have a right to remove anything from Kurth's book that is sourced from Rathlef or Botkin since they are both now totally discredited.

In case you missed it here is the rule

You should read the following carefully as it comes from the Anna Anderson discussion page from Trusilver :

I will give one opinion on this and allow it to be interpreted as you will: Every person that achieves any form of celebrity status during their lifetime will eventually (especially after they are dead and can't pursue claims of libel) have something written about them that is patently false and easily provable as such. Fringe authors have repeatedly written books detailing life events of famous historical figures that conflict with the writings of others. In these situations, it has been past Wikipedia practice to not lend weight to that which can be easily disproven. Not every opinion is equal and Wikipedia does not have any obligation to give equal weight to all sides of an obviously lopsided disagreement of fact. That being said, I'm going to to open an RfC today for this article (bear with me, I'm busy today) and perhaps we will get some other opinions. Trusilver 16:48, 30 AAggiebean (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, lecturing an editor whom Trusilver asked to take over at Anna Anderson! And who is it not listening to Trusilver's directions? Want to take another sock at sock-puppetry? How about copying and pasting Trusilver's other remarks? Don't fall for this claptrap, Bookworm!76.195.94.220 (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That was before Trusilver worked out what you were up to Bookworm; pushing inaccurate and discredited sources. Finneganw 12:23, 11 June 2009

I would really like to know, why are you so against her being ID'd as FS? If news stories take it for granted and write it as a fact, if everyone except AA supporters accept it, why is it even an issue? You may like to add 'according to her supporters' but I hope you know that now makes them look like loonies. I know you feel sorry for Kurth and Schweitzer and you want to try to salvage something for them to hang onto but they too need to face reality. The evidence is so overwhelming that she is FS it's wrong to mislead readers by saying she might not have been. Please tell me, who was she then? FS and AA were always the only two suspects. What happened to FS? She was never heard from again after AA showed up. They were always the same person! I know some of the supporters don't want to feel like fools for being tricked by a peasant, but that is exactly what happened. Their wishful thinking and excuses did it for them. You can see from the hovel and squalor she ended up living in of her own choice, both in Germany and the US, that she was certainly not very high class! All the claims of her 'royal deportment' and 'regal bearing' are contradicted by the way she acted and lived. Obviously, some people just saw what they chose to see, and made excuses for the rest. They knew she acted very vulgar and crude, but they wrote it off to being 'traumatized.' Maybe she put on a good act at a few cotillions, many actresses do. But you know, the real Anastasia was a tomboy and by the time she was old enough for social functions the war had stopped them, so playing the cultured princess was even out of character for the real Anastasia. Franziska's gig is up. I'm sorry it's so disappointing to you and your heroes that you can't at least say she was nobility, but that is not the truth. Please don't let your sympathy for Kurth and Schweitzer get in the way of your rationality. Let's do the article right.Aggiebean (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with several things you put in my talk page: 1. The DNA- since the time of the 1994 tests, the probability of her being FS has increased greatly. I could show you the long details if you are interested. All the evidence points to FS. It's wrong to even suggest she wasn't when it's very obvious she was. 2. Kurth's book being a good reference for things in her life- no, because so much of them are told by Rathlef and Botkin who were biased and turned out to be wrong. Also the quotes from other supporters such as Prince Frederick and Duke of Leuchenberg are now very suspect. Even Leuchenberg's own son disagreed with him. I agree the stuff about her later years is okay, maybe some basics, but not much else is trustworthy anymore. What he calls 'the true story of AA' is now discarded fantasy. 3."Letting people make up their own mind." No, this is a bad thing now that we know the answer. This may have been okay before the DNA tests, but now it is just plain wrong and misleading to write an article that could be taken that she may have been AN. I know this is what you and the AA supporters want, but this is not reality and we need to make sure that the article does not leave any other option to the reader than the proven fact that she was not AN and was FS. The 'mystery' must end.

Aggiebean (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

CC for your reference and relief I hope...[edit]

--- On Sat, 6/6/09, REV. ANTONIO HERNANDEZ <suriak@att.net> wrote:


From: REV. ANTONIO HERNANDEZ <suriak@att.net> Subject: Administrators Date: Saturday, June 6, 2009, 3:57 PM


Dear Administrator(s),

I am former user RevAntonio. Yesterday my 30-day ban lifted, an unjust range-block applied by administrator Trusilver. Though it was wrong of me, I posted a warning to certain users who are hounding and attemtping to terrorize me. I see Trusilver has passed the torch to you, and seems to be implying that he's leaving Wikipedia soon. So I post to you, though I know I shouldn't be posting at all, to ask assistance with one issue:

Sometime after being granted the Right to Vanish, I posted a bit at Talk:Anna Anderson, where all the trouble is centred. I shouldn't have done that, but there it is. It also happens that my IP address fluctuates because I am on the net as a business--I cannot help that, my provider tells me. Please, I am requesting administrative intervention at the Anna Anderson talk page and other talk pages, to stop those users from persisting with their knowingly false accusations. The users are Lisa, aggiebean and finneganw--surely you know of them, as they rant on every page they are able. Since user Lisa has been in a great deal of past trouble, she is keeping a much lower profile, but the other two usernames will surely be ranting at you sooner or later.

Although they and Trusilver know who I am, they have all, in collusion, persisted in accusing me of sock-puppetry, vandalization, edit-warring, threats, and other vile nonsense. They had been warned by Trusilver recently to stop the accusations of sock-puppetry, Trusilver informing them that multiple IPs do NOT constitute sock-puppetry. They of course have ignored the direction. My identity matters, because I have posted personal information in the past, and these users find a safe haven by accusing me of being many other users. It is one of their favorite tactics, to chase away editors from the Anna Anderson page.

It is sort of a game with them to make vicious accusations against users they do not like. Admittedly, I do have an abrasive history with these users...assuming it is more than one user...and as a result, it has been Trusilver's sport to harshly punish me, without knowing or caring about any of the actual facts. He merely did whatever the abovementioned users dictated to him, including the range-block. They have been asking since the end of May that my IPs be permanently blocked. On top of all this, those users have no right to mention the old, non-existent username RevAntonio...nor do they have entitlement to bring up my past.

Trusilver finally drew the line when he was ordered to permanently range-block my IPs. This seemed to put an end to any publicly posted collusion on Trusilver's part. Something more: I can CC you or direct you to the section on Trusilver's talk page, in which he stated to me that he was using a special double standard against me because he did not like me. If you go to his talk page, you will find it if you simply search the page for the term double standard. He has deleted certain posts I have left him in the past, in which I rightfully challenged his unfairness. He has encouraged the use of my now-non-existent username/user identity, and he has gossiped about me to other users. The other guilty users have been having a field day with my identity and old non-existent username since my unjustified IPs range-block.

Though it is fruitless, I have submitted my case to both arbitration and bureaucracy--they have both assured me they are forwarding my request for amelioration to the proper party. I have no idea who that party is, and that is why I'm posting THIS for all to see.

I have noted that the users in question somehow breeze through the system, undisciplined and out-of-control. In the past, they have accused others as they now accuse me, of being the author Peter Kurth, another individual whom they loathe. Kurth unfortunately has a bad and foolish history on the same talk page Anna Anderson; he did battle there because he wrote Anna Anderson's biography. I attest that I am not Peter Kurth nor any other user now active.

You will see now, also, that these users have found a way to sneak in posts without any kind of signature showing. This way, no one can see who has posted which information. I have no doubt they are vandalizing their own talk posts in their effort to terrorize editors they dislike.

Please, I am asking you in an act of self-protection, that you approach and warn these users about this hounding and cyber-terrorism. They know how to work this system, and I have no doubt they will set Wikipedia aflame once they see this post; I can assure you they are monitoring for yet another chance to persist in their wrongdoing.


Rev. Dr. Antonio Akiva Hernandez, O.M.D., Judaeobuddhist Order www.myspace.com/judaeobuddhist www.cryptojews.com/Antonio_Hernandez.htm76.195.94.220 (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Stay in, stay strong[edit]

Bookie, you have clear-headed, excellent points, just as the undeservedly loved Trusivler said of you. It was one of the few rational things he ever said. DON'T QUIT! Don't let those damned bullies hurt your feelings; you have excellent ideas for that page! I am a little more in support of you than I am with the general feel at the Talk:Anna Andersonpage, because you say, "Treat KURTH'S BOOK fairly," and I like that. That is proper scholarship. What you said is what I've been telling them since early April--Kurth cannot be erased just because they don't like his probable but not conclusively proved lies/frauds. He did write a book that was "THE" source for Anna, everyone's source from 1983 until the late 1990s. And I resent finneganw making the silly claim that "many libraries have moved" Kurth to fiction. That's horsefeathers and he knows it. They are just trying to goad you... then you stick up for yourself, then they run to the new admin we have over there and get you banned unjustly. Look at the admin's talk page; they're at it already because they are not scholars or journalists or anything. Don't let them get to you, please!75.21.124.148 (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I personally know librarians who have told me the book was removed once the final DNA results were published in March. Bookworm, I want you to know that I do not consider you among the 'delusional fanatics' who cannot behave properly and live in another realm. However I do think it's unfortunate that you seem to put the feelings of Kurth and Schweitzer above reality and accuracy in the article.Aggiebean (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Aggiebean, we are not talkin feelings here. We are talking about the facts of Anna Anderson's life that led up to her lawsuit and formed her life. Facts that you want to be silenced, probably because they pose a challenge to the DNA. But that's how history works, you cannot just present one side and sweep the rest under the carpet. And no matter what the DNA outcome was, it does not change one line of Peter Kurth's book. What happened, happened. ChatNoir24 (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
And a last gasp for you Bookworm: do you see that up there, in aggie-girl's post? She knows librarians who moved the book... what CRAP. If that is not "original research" with NO place in Wikipedia, then what is?? And she sneaks this in as if it were gospel and irrefutable. We wanted facts, reliable sources, but we get the above instead. Godspeed, Bookworm, I'm GONE. It is what the hell I should have done in the 1st place when I vanished. Tell aggiebean next time you respond that she should watch my case and see where stupid arrogance gets you. And for heaven's sake, I am not ChatNoir24, I think you know that!75.21.124.148 (talk) 04:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Susy Clemens[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Susy Clemens, 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/Susy Clemens. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree it should be deleted. Why? It's a nice article, very well written and touching. There are other people equally as 'unfamous' here who have articles. Please let it stay. There are thousands of articles here, why not?Aggiebean (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it would appear that there is no substantial reason to delete the article. Finneganw, 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ha, sockpuppetry at its finest. If not, well-done replica of sockpuppetry. And watch out for the usersnakes. The above is a bid to trick you, curry your favor. Fair warning. That is all I have to say, except one more "Godspeed" for you, Bookworm.75.21.124.148 (talk) 05:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Bookworm may not agree with Finneganw and I but he/she knows we are two very different people. He was here a year or 2 before I ever came to wikipedia. Your 'arguments' do not belong on a personal talk page have nothing to do with Susy Clemens.Aggiebean (talk) 10:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think your skulduggery and deceptions have A LOT to do with Susy Clemens. Just as you thought I had a lot to do with Noahidism. No, aggiebean, you're not doing this to me again, or to anyone else.75.21.124.148 (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Anna Anderson redo[edit]

Do you refuse to ever accept the fact that she is FS and let us put that in the article? After all it is accepted by everyone except Kurth and about 5 supporters, you, Russophile, Bear, Ferrymansdaughter and John Kendrick. I do not think trying to salvage a little face for Kurth or AA supporters - and that is really what it amounts to- is worth sacrificing the factual content of the article. All evidence points to her being FS, and there is no evidence she was anyone else, and leaving it as a hypothetical mystery only leaves the article open ended again and that is what we are trying to prevent. Also, do you agree anything Rathlef wrote about her 'remembering' should not be allowed in the article?

I guess in the end, we will have to let the mods decide what we do, or they will delete the article.Aggiebean (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

How about this on FS: Instead of saying she was 'probably' FS or definitely FS, we could leave it as that detectives in the 1920s identified her as FS and modern DNA tests back up that finding, and that it's widely accepted as her true identity by media, etc. That way we leave out any offensive wording to cause us to fight. Is this okay?Aggiebean (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Massie's book is good, but in cases where we have direct quotes from the scientists themselves and not just the observations of the reporters, we can use them as fact. We can also use the Gill report itself. I do have a problem with leaving the question of her identity with 'probably'. There isn't enough evidence to make a case against her being FS to do that. She did not use the name Anastasia Manahan until she was 72 years old, so I object to her being called by that name throughout the article. Anna Anderson is the name of the article and the name that will be used by people who come here to look her up.Aggiebean (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

About the new AA book, it was posted by FA on the AP forum, but since all the suvivor threads have been merged into each other in ways I don't understand I can no longer find anything. The post said that someone who was in correspondence with the site was doing research and had found "MUCH MUCH MUCH" new previously unknown info that would completely prove AA was FS and answer all the questions about her case. It is supposed to go to the printers next year. I can't wait either. I'm only sorry I wasn't the one to find out all that stuff, but being that I have no money to travel the world and get into archives and stuff and track down the FS family I have no chance of that. If they have letters, pics and stories proving AA was FS then will you believe it? I know Chat never will.Aggiebean (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I know one thing, I KNOW on the basis of proof and the sources that she WAS Franziska Schanskowska. I'm not denying that should be in the entry. See what I just commented on the talk page. Whereas, a problem I see as a big one is the shoveling of POVs instead of sticking to fact. ChatNoir has done enough... but we have this new problem regarding Kurth. Aggie, you already know from me what that problem is. Let's work on it together!75.21.155.47 (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Rev, if you have something to say to me why not go to my page instead of Bookworm's?Aggiebean (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me off this ride for a sec....[edit]

Bookworm, my apologies to you that I had to chase aggiebean here, and forgive me disrupting the talk page. I know I've said you want to run from this... do it, I don't blame you. Take a vacation, like I did. But please don't suggest vacations to others. Especially to the "mods" as aggiebean keeps calling them. They've been basically on vacation throughout this whole thing, except when they're busy yamping down my throat! And may I respectfully ask you, to whom were you referring when you said "eccentric"? I hope not to me, I hope not to the efforts being made at the talk page. We were reaching consensus on major things. Well, I am eccentric, who isn't? The truth is not "eccentric".75.21.155.47 (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


Bookworm, I am ready to join in your cooling off period if it's unanimous among all involved. However things may get out of hand if some of them stick around. Maybe you should put your idea on the AA talk page and see who agrees.Aggiebean (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Bookie, do what your conscience and heart tells you. Don't take suggestions from a "human" who amounts to no more than a sock puppet full of holes. Don't you see what she's doing? Did you see what they've done to me? And too stupid to even get it right. A rest from that damned subject would be if they erased the page, deleted it case closed. The aggiebean might go outside and frighten the wildlife instead.75.21.149.82 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC).

He's back with yet another IP, leaving abusive and harassing messages on my personal talk page as well as here. Is there anything that can be done to end his disruption for good?Aggiebean (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Your AA proposition[edit]

I still agree with Finneganw on this, I don't think we can get into details w/o fighting. How about you write a sandbox version of what you're talking about and submit it for our approval? Maybe we're not as far apart as we think?Aggiebean (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Bookworm, did you do your homework for the SS to approve yet? I cannot believe aggiebean, but just remember Bookworm, she does not own that page. Either we edit or we don't...but please don't let her bullying chase you away!76.195.93.15 (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • OK, hopefully this is rescue time. Please bookie, go contact User Talk:Gwen Gale. There's someone with a half a brain or better! Working to make the page what it should be, and GG thinks like you and I do!76.195.83.199 (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Miley (given name)[edit]

Hi, may I ask why you re-added the picture of Miley Cyrus on Miley (given name)? I provided a good reason for removing it, and if you didn't see it, it was because the article is about the name and not her. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 21:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

With that logic, I guess it's safe to say that we can put a picture of Emma Watson on the page for the name Emma. Or a picture of Anne Hathaway on the page for the name Anne. You make no sense. It does not matter that Miley popularized the name, she does not represent girls who are given that name, and the picture does not need to be there. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 01:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Gayane (given name)[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Gayane (given name), 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/Gayane (given name). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Patchy1Talk To Me! 06:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

List of most popular given names#Africa[edit]

Hello Bookworm and thanks for all the good work.

Whilst reverting an unwelcome new addition, I noticed that the quoted source does not mention the names you added either, implying only that Muhammad was the most popular male name in Tunisia. As a major contributor you obviously know what you're doing, so I haven't changed your contributions. Could the source have changed? Certes (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

As you suggested, I have tagged the list as source needed. Thank you. Certes (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

October 2009[edit]

Information.png Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. MC10 (TCGBLEM) 16:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Rusty Willoughby[edit]

I notice that a few years back you marked for speedy deletion the Rusty Willoughby because it didn't demonstrate notability (I agree with you that it didn't at that time). Just wanted to make sure that I'm not trying to sneak anything by you in reviving the article. I'm pretty sure that my present version demonstrates notability to Wikipedia's standards. If you think not, please drop a note on my talk page & I'll see what further I can come up with by way of documentation. He's been in at least two clearly notable bands (Flop and the Fastbacks) and is a rather respected songwriter on the Seattle scene. - Jmabel | Talk 03:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Virginia Dare[edit]

Leaving alone the United States vs the Americas argument, do you not find it redundant to say "...English child born in America to English parents"? Big Bird (talkcontribs) 02:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Princess Marie of Hesse and by Rhine[edit]

The photo was deleted - can you replace it. Paul Austin (talk) 07:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Hazel Miner/GA1[edit]

Hey, just notifying you of this GA reassessment. Not much to fix, but it does need to be done. Wizardman 15:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion[edit]

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to List of most popular given names.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT 14:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.

Articles for deletion nomination of Shrine of Our Lady of the Prairies[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Shrine of Our Lady of the Prairies, 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/Shrine of Our Lady of the Prairies. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Joe Chill (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

explanation wanted[edit]

What, precisely, was your basis for this "undo", in which you reintroduced inconsistent dating styles to an article? - Nunh-huh 16:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello Bookworm857158367! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1,916 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Sarah Smith (writer) - Find sources: "Sarah Smith (writer)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Марианна и Марина[edit]

Учитывая тот факт что вы специализируетесь на статьях на русскую тематику, возьму на себя смелость писать по-русски. Объясните мне, на каком основании вы считаете, что имя Марина является формой имени Анна и где, скажите мне на милость, вы слышали или читали, что имя Марианна русское? Насчет имени Марина я даже ссылку на статью поставил - известное и распространное имя, означает "Морская" в переводе с латыни. PS if you dont understand Russian language - i'll translate my message --RussianSpy (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Why dont you want to hear me. I said that Marina is not a form of name Anna. And also i said that Marianna IS NOT Russian name. I live in Russia 27 years, I've read hundreds of books of Russian classics literature and and Russian history. And I've never heard any Russians named Marianna. What i have to do to prove my words??? --RussianSpy (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Anna again[edit]

  • Say, why did you leap in and try to make me look dopey re: the female form of surnames at Anna Anderson? You really think everyone in America knows this? You think the Olympics have to do with Anna Anderson?75.21.144.84 (talk) 13:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverting my edits[edit]

Hi, I noticed you had reverted some edits I made (before I registered) to the article List of most popular given names

The article in question refers to newborn babies by order of their religion ie:"Muslim boys" and "Christian girls".How has a child that has not yet been given a name, decided which religion to follow? Isnt it more accurate, as my changes suggested, to say that these children had parents who are followers of the various religions? You wouldnt, for instance , say "Republican children" or "Socialist children",would you?

Thank you for listening, anyways

Anders.

Russian names[edit]

Say, I wanted to CC you with the post I left on this allegedly Russian person's talk page. Bookie, you ought to know better than trying this crap! When it comes down to it, you actually present a very lame and rude argument about Mariana as a Russian name! For God's sake, research first, then comment!

QUOTE:

"Etymology of names I have to agree with the owner of this page here, Bookworm. I know you've had your fights and you're a tough scrapper--I admire. Here, however, I think you ought not throw into people's faces that you are allegedly some kind of expert in Russian language and history. You have an abrasive way of stating things that you think may be correct. This Mariana issue is one of them. I'd say YOU'D best leave this issue alone--you are beginning to remind me of Aggiebean!76.195.83.61 (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)"76.195.83.61 (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  • OK, so I'm hopping back in here to give YOU a linguistic lesson. We know MARIA was used by Palestinian Jews for centuries. The name is found on ossuaries and in tombs, we presume it is a Hellenic import. In its most popular form among Jews it was MARIANTHE or MARIAMNE. ANNA is a Hebrew name (Hannah)--yet we never see nor do we know at all of a Hebrew combination like MARI-HANNAH; the closest we have is MARIAMNE, which is a name found on an ossuary dating to the A.D. 1st century. You see, this tells us nothing of the Russian tradition centuries later, only that Russians may or may not have adopted the name...clearly they have no problem with the name MARIA (as a Christian rather than Russian name) or ANNA, though they cannot rightly be called Russian names. Yet you seem to be telling this poor slob that Mariana (Marianna) is Russian. That is sloppy work, Bookie!76.195.83.61 (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not interested in getting into a debate with you, but for the record Marianna is in use as a rare name in Russia and other Slavic countries, as I explained to this fellow. The language of origin is Hebrew via Latin and Greek. There are variants of Miriam and Anna in nearly every language because Christianity is so widespread. Calling it Russian isn't saying that's the language of origin but one of the countries it is used in. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, I'm also not interested in debates because I deal in facts, which I outlined to you very clearly. Therefore I hardly need you to repeat back to me the facts I initially raised here. Secondly, I agree with your wording above, so why did you give that Russian spy person such a hard time? You could have said the same words to him. But you held his feet to the fire. I mean, are you Russian? Are you a linguist as I am? Have you dwelt in Russia? You should go easy on the arrogance, this place is getting to you as it does to all of us!76.195.83.61 (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Not interested in continuing this. I provided a reference and explained why I refused to remove that variant of Mary from the list. If you have other resources that would add to the Mary article, by all means do so. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, ditto. Just remember, I'm fairly straightforward but others as you well know are not. You are inheriting a know-it-all tone & that is why you get chased off places.76.195.85.164 (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Alfred Kunz (Catholic priest)[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Alfred Kunz (Catholic priest). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Kunz (Catholic priest). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hazel Miner[edit]

The article Hazel Miner you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Hazel Miner for things which need to be addressed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

There should be just ten names per line[edit]

In List of most popular given names there should be just ten names per line. Xqsd (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Redaktor Wikipedia 600px.png

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

About the Miley (name)[edit]

Please give me a reason rolling back my changes.

Xcvista (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Alexandra Kitchin[edit]

Good work on the pictures! Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Bux.jpg[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Bux.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

He could fix the mistakes and not to constantly wipe my work. Thanks.--Свифт (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not want to edit the article but just to enter this information. These negotiations for the marriage of truth and they are written in Serbian historiography. Tatiana and Alexander have corresponded during the First World War. There are kept letters that were sold at auction in New York several years ago. Thanks.--Свифт (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

CSI[edit]

Did you not read the "Show me it's notable, don't tell me." People say "it just needs more references" all the time and never make a freaking effort to try and find any. It's always someone else's problem. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Mistaken[edit]

Bookworm, you must be mistaken. While the live action movie actually was based around Anderson, the animated film was not. The character was not Anderson, nor based off Anderson. Only the idea of proving themselves to the Grand Dowager was similar. Anna Anderson, even in the live action film, did not prove to be Anastasia at any point. The character of Anya, however, did prove herself. In the fictional movie, she was the princess Anastasia. I will find an outside source, if this is what you wish, but the fact I am trying to cite is simply the plot. The plot of the story cannot be argued. It is the way it is. The animated film does not relate to Anderson. Fox simply stated they got the idea for the film from the live action film of the same name. Their plots, however, are extremely different. Fox created a film that was about an orphan named Anya who lost her identity and sets out to find her family. In the process, she discovers that she is the Grand Duchess Anastasia, daughter of Czar Nicholas. The name Anderson was not used at all, nor was this story based around her. If you don't believe me, I suggest you look into the topic, or better yet watch the movie. Neither Anderson, or her story (fictionally or non-fictionally) relates to the 1997 film Anastasia, which is to do with the actual Romanov princess trying to discover her past. Again, I really hope we can work this out. I found that this particular section was erroneous, and I feel it is only right that I correct it. However, I will tell you that finding a valid plot summary may prove to be a difficult task. >A loyal editor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.236.156 (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I also feel that the point of saying that this story is based off the legend of Anna Anderson to some extent is arguable. Though I respect your opinion, there is no proof the stories are at all connected, unless you were in fact one of the writers of the film. I believe the writers got the idea from several legends surrounding the princess, not just one from Anna Anderson. As far as the plot is conserned, they are not related. >A loyal editor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.236.156 (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the point I am trying to make is the plot. The entire plot states that Anya is Anastasia. This is the point. This distints Anya from Anna Anderson. Anya was the princess, Anderson was not. It is simply a matter of plot. I don't know how much more simply I can put this. >A loyal editor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.236.156 (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, I will say that this is debatable. The animated film has very little in common with the live action film. The name and story was not used in the animated film. But now, we are just getting into matters of opinion. Another thing I don't understand is why IMDb is an innapropriate source. It gives a plot summary, and that is all I need to justify this point. However, I will try to find other means of proof if this won't do. You must understand, however, that at this point I am really worn down. I am trying to prove a simple point, but nothing seems good enough. All I need is the plot summary. If you have any better suggestions of where a good site would be to find what I need, please feel free to let me know. I am between a rock and a hard place. >A loyal editor 74.101.236.156 (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, the movie got a similar idea from the film, not a basis. However, I appreciate your opinion. Perhaps if I simply rephrase the fact. Tell me if this is acceptable, otherwise, I will keep searching. I am not trying to cause any trouble, but you must understand where I am coming from. This is really just a simple point I am trying to make. The plot disagrees that "Anya" and Anderson are related. Anya is not Anderson. Their stories are different, and the writers do not metion that they based the film off Anderson at all. This is stated clearly in the plot. Hopefully, this will be resolved soon. Thank you for your cooperation. I do respect your work on Wikipedia. Being an editor myself, I know. >A loyal editor 74.101.236.156 (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I have finally made it work. I added an external link to a plot synopsis, and added it as part of the fact, therefore it does check out. All I am trying to prove is the plot and idea of the story so this does work. >A loyal editor 74.101.236.156 (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Controversial? Bookworm, I believe that there is a huge misunderstanding. Please see the comment I left on the Anna Anderson talk page. Though I respect your work, I must disagree with you. It should be clear that the statement I am reverting is the controversial statement. I really am surprised you would say that. It is fact I am adding, not myth. Nowhere is there proof of any connection to (1997) Anastasia and Anna Anderson! Someone keeps trying to tie in two ideas. It is incorrect and not at all valid! Please understand that disruptive is not my intent. It is what I am trying to prevent. You will find all your answers on the Anna Anderson talk page. Perhaps if you try and understand my perspective, you will also feel my frustration. These statements of attempted connection are not true, and knowing they are not, I can’t allow them to be posted in the façade of fact. If this is truly causing problems, I will begin extensive research on this topic (which should be fairly simple to grasp). I am not trying to prove a conspiracy theory. I am just stating the obvious fact. Anderson is not "Anya", nor are they directly related (at least). I truly hope that this will all be worked out. I honestly mean that. >A loyal editor 74.101.236.156 (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I want you to know I am not IP 74[edit]

Hey Bookie, long time no argue. Just dropped by to your congested talk to let you know I am not 74. Since 74's being lavished with so much attention, it's obvious you guys already know 74 is not I. For pete's sake, even Kiernan replied to him! Keep on truckin'. No way that article could be made worse at this point, so....75.21.144.92 (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Nazar[edit]

What the hell? I put a lot of work into that article. If you have a problem with some particular change, let me know by all means, but reverting the whole thing as if it were vandalism is crappy behavior. I'd revert it back, but I don't want to get into an edit war, so I'm giving you a chance to explain what you had in mind in the hopes that we can come to a mutually acceptable compromise. What could you possibly have against my adding the Arabic original? Also, the article is about the name, and all that stuff about meditation and amulets is completely irrelevant and should go. Languagehat (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I just saw you reverted your reversion. Thanks, I appreciate that. Sorry I was so snippy in my previous message, but I hope you can understand my annoyance. Languagehat (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Bux.jpg[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Bux.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Marianna[edit]

Please tell me about this name. Why did you cancel my edits? Ref link (http://www.behindthename.com/name/marianna) in that article doesnt contain any proof of using this name in Russia. Sorry for my English. --RussianSpy (talk) 12:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Trying to magic Medici into "Black Africans"[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Giulia de' Medici, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. 90.215.164.30 (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if you have a dog in this fight, or whether you're just one of those lily-livered liberal revisionists who like to tinker with history to try and fit it to your whims. However, the mother of Alessandro de' Medici, Duke of Florence was a Moorish servant girl in Rome (ie - Berber or Arab from North Africa, not a "Black African"). Aside from that category being incorrect, it is highly unencyclopedic to begin an articl, such as Giulia de' Medici, with "possibily biracial" (that her grandmother was Moorish is trivia). Even people who are actually bi-racial such as Barack Obama do not have "Barack Obama is the, biracial, President of the United States". - 90.215.164.30 (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
There also seems to be a problem with the assertion that she is an ancestor of many of the royal houses of Europe. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
You removed the "failed verification" tag without edit summary, without changing the citation and without addressing the issue on the talk page. Please explain why. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Intentional disambiguation[edit]

Please review WP:INTDABLINK. Where an intentional disambiguation link appears in article space, it must redirect through the "foo (disambiguation)" redirect, in order to remove the link from the list of pages requiring repair. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

List of most popular given names[edit]

Hi, I see you removed the maintenance tag {{dablinks}} from List of most popular given names. This article links to 146 disambigs, making it one of the worst in Wikipedia. I'd say most of the links here are intentional, and I'd be happy to help you work on it. But I don't see any need to just remove the template. --JaGatalk 20:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained reverts[edit]

Hi!

You made an unexplained reversion to a change on Autumn (given name). Please, when reverting a change, leave a message indicating the reason for the reversion. I have undid your reversion; if you wish to provide some rationale or argument against my changes, please bring it up on the article's talk page.

Thanks! Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back![edit]

Welcome back to WikiProject Anthroponymy!
Come check out our new layout.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Anthroponymy at 07:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC).

Feb 2011 Newsletter[edit]


Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Anthroponymy at 06:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

WP:APO template deletions[edit]

Hey guys, a couple of templates used by WP:APO have been nominated for deletion. We could use your help to Oppose their deletion. If you agree the project needs them, as per WPAPO:HN then please vote Oppose here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Aboutgivenname

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Anthroponymy at 04:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC).

WP:APO March Newsletter[edit]


Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Anthroponymy at 09:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

BLP, ethnicity, gender[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Include "ethnicity, gender," to match all other guidelines

Some say source requirements for ethnicity and gender of WP:EGRS don't apply to WP:BLP living persons, simply because the two words aren't in the policy. (Apparently, they think it should only apply to dead people.) I see that you have participated on this topic at the Village Pump.

They also are trying to remove the notability, relevance, and self-identification criteria at WT:EGRS, but that's another fight for another day, I'm simply too busy to watch two fronts at the same time.

We're on the 6th day. Traditionally, these polls go for 7; unless there's no obvious consensus, when we go for an additional 7 days.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained reversion to Virginia Dare[edit]

Dear Bookworm, you made an unexplained reversion to my edit of Virginia Dare. Please, when you revert an edit, perhaps you might explain why you did so? No doubt you had good reason; it would be helpful to know what it was. I have not reverted your edit. Asteuartw (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth Siddal (Spelling)[edit]

Hello Bookworm, I've noticed that you undid my British English spelling corrections to the Elizabeth Siddal article. Was this a mistake or do you disagree with the changes? All the best, Grim23 04:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Margarita Armstrong-Jones[edit]

Why did you undo my edit here? All I did was fix the formatting and spacing, link to the wedding article, and slightly alter phrasing. —innotata 00:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

List of most popular given names[edit]

Hello, I may have sounded a bit out of context on my summary for the edit but my point is that why do we dedicate a whole line for a minority, then we should put Japanese, Chinese and Musulman names in Russia too. France's republic does not recognize any minority for that matter so the statistics are unofficial. I think that is enough for the Wikipedia's policy on editing. As for the hyphenated I'm leaving it there but I am trying to get my hands on official statistics which seem to be really hard and costly. Regardless of the fundamental principle in France's republic that we do not recognize any minority and therefore do not collect any statistics on minorities, the source they gave is not certified by the INSEE and is full of gramatical mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon1794 (talkcontribs) 18:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your reasoning. It's simple, the statistics are unofficial and not substantial at all. If you gave it a look and went to the official institution for statistics in France, INSEE, you would realize the website did not take its statistics from any relevant institutions that have credibility. The website doesn't even cite sources. Moreover, for the same reasons as the Islam names in UK delete, those statistics if they were substantial would have no place in this page because as it is said on the page "The names listed in the following tables, unless otherwise noted, represent the most current top 10 breakdowns of what newborn children are commonly being named in the various regions of the world." and not in the various ethnics of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon1794 (talkcontribs) 03:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Murder of Alfred Kunz for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murder of Alfred Kunz 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/Murder of Alfred Kunz 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. Cerejota (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Virginia Dare[edit]

From the look of things on this talk page, you have a tendency to do unexplained reverts. You are enough of a veteran editor here to know that you shouldn't be doing anything like that. There is simply no point in having a large section duplicated between articles, especially when Roanoke Colony goes through the various theories in far greater detail. In fact, one assertion that was in the Virginia Dare article (about the Welsh priest) is even thought to be a hoax, which is explained as such (and cited) in Roanoke Colony. If you disagree with this approach, please explain why on the talk page. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 10:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Ava (given name)[edit]

Read the link again and take it to talk and explain your reasoning if you think its worth it.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 04:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Anastasia[edit]

Hello, I see you reverted my correction on this page. [By the way, sorry, I did the edit with my IP address, I thought I was logged in but I wasn't!] Can I ask why? The link you put brings to a disambiguation page, and I was trying to avoid that. Anastasia was born at the Peterhof Palace, in the municipality of Petergof, which is what I put. Daphoenyx (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Misclick?[edit]

What happened here? --John (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I've undone your edit on the basis that this was probably an error on your part. Let me know if you need an explanation of the edit I have reinstated. Best wishes, --John (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't realize the newspaper was just called The Times. My only concern is that a worldwide audience isn't going to know it's a London newspaper because so many papers are called "The Times." If there's a way to wiki-link the entry to the newspaper's entry, that would help. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I've done that. --John (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ava(Given Name)/Farsi or Persian[edit]

Read this article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language

The language should be called Persian in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pouyakhani (talkcontribs) 11:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your constructive edits that seem to be going on forever. I award you this barnstar! Pinkstrawberry02talk 14:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Please reply on my talk page, and don't forget to sign my guestbook. Thanks.

Miya[edit]

Im not sure why you insist on deleting Miya as an alternate spelling. Additionally, your logic that it isn't listed in the top 1,000 names so it shouldn't be included seems unnecessarily rigid. The language in the paragraph specifically states that the alternate spellings are sometimes used implying that they are not necessarily popular.

Finally, (unless User:Victor1111 is a sock - and there is some history here beyond the 8 recent changes I viewed) you are being unnecessarily rude to a new user who registered after trying to edit as an IP presumably to gain more respect for his edit which you completely ignored. --Trödel 22:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Diane Russell[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Diane Russell has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TM 15:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In List of most popular given names, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Luciana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States[edit]

WikiProject United States logo.svg

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States 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.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited List of most popular given names, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ethan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited List of most popular given names, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mark and Angelina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited List of most popular given names, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yasin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited List of most popular given names, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cornelia and Lamar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects[edit]

WikiProject United States logo.svg

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States 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.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited List of most popular given names, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited List of most popular given names, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mason, Manuela and Noya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

AfD and PROD notifications[edit]

Hi Bookworm857158367,

Back in December, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, which was part of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links to the templates), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at mpinchuk@wikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited List of most popular given names, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Esperanza (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sister Varvara Yakovleva[edit]

Hello,

I wanted to inquire about the article on Wikipedia you wrote about Sister Varvara Yakovleva. Where did you obtain the picture, do you know if she has family or how I may trace that ?

Non-free rationale for File:Tatianahelpingsoldier.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Tatianahelpingsoldier.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:FranzJosephBattenberg.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:FranzJosephBattenberg.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 07:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:FranzJosephBattenberg.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:FranzJosephBattenberg.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 07:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of most popular given names, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

List of most popular given names[edit]

Hello :) I just moved Philippines from Pacific to Asia because yeah, Philippines is in Asia. That's all. Hope you understand why I haven't done a "constructive" edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.55.114 (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of most popular given names (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Ilya, Elif, Bilal, Farah, Nada, Habiba, Zaynab, Salim, Yasin, Marwa, Fadi, Reem, Farida, Suha and Khalid

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of most popular given names (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Elif, Bilal, Farah, Athanasios and Fadi

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle[edit]

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited
Seattle Public Library
  • Date Saturday, December 8, 2012
  • Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m.
  • Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104
  • Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand.
  • Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki.
  • Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration.

Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Izaro (given name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basque Country (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of most popular given names, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ilya and Yasin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandy Hook[edit]

Bookworm, while I appreciate your help in improving the article, you are adding way too much detail to the article and I have opened up a section on the talk page. In addition, please try to add references in the format favored in the article. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of most popular given names, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cornelia and Chiara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of most popular given names, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antonina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of most popular given names, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Juliana and Ellie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of most popular given names, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Max, Anthony and Yasin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of most popular given names, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uroš (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Maria Nikolaevna[edit]

May I ask why you undid my revision without giving any explanation? The sentence I removed, "Until his own assassination in 1979, her first cousin, Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma, kept a photograph of Maria beside his bed in memory of the crush he had upon her", already appears under both the "Life and characteristics" and "Rediscovery and reports of survival" subheadings. Is it really necessary for the exact same sentence to be repeated again? Wolcott (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


List of Popular Given Names for February 1[edit]

Greetings, Bookworm. I am at a loss as to why you edited my revision to List of most popular given names. I thought it logical to provide a link to the page David (name)as this is what is being referred to under the popular names list rather then the article relating to King David. You stated that this was not constructive. It would be helpful to know why it is not? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.210.28 (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm PatGallacher. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! You have made unexplained deletions to a number of articles. Why? PatGallacher (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Tabitha (disambiguation) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tabitha (disambiguation) 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/Tabitha (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

  • Hi. It is completely normal and permissible for an article on a given name to sit at an undisambiguated title, and to contain a list of people sharing that name. Also, please do not make cut and paste moves from a page, and then redirect that page in another direction. This makes it very difficult to properly attribute the article to its authors. Cheers! bd2412 T
The standard title for given names articles is now Name (given name). I am also trying to avoid having the given name page turned into a disambiguation page. The title of the article should be moved back immediately to Tabitha (given name) and the disambiguation page should be separate. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of most popular given names, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rasmus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Given name stubs[edit]

In stub-sorting today I've found several of your given name stubs with title "Xxx (given name)". As I usually do, I've checked to see whether they are linked from the article at Xxx, and I find that yes, they are linked, but unfortunately those dab pages all now seem to be in need of repair.

As I understand it, there are two formats for a dab page. If "Xxx" has a primary use, then the dab page is at "Xxx (disambiguation)" and starts with "Xxx is ...", linked to that page, and goes on: "Xxx" may also refer to: ...". If Xxx does not have a primary use, then the dab page is at "Xxx" and begins "Xxx" may refer to:". All links to articles from dab pages are unpiped, to show the article titles being disambiguated (with exceptions for bluelinks which don't use the disambiguated term).

Entries for people with given name Xxx and a surname do not belong on the dab page if there is a separate article for the given name, but are acceptable there in the absence of such a page. See WP:MOSDAB and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards.

You have created a "Xxx (given name)" article, linked the mention of the name at the top of the page (unpiped), but not moved the given-name-plus-surname entries to the given name article.

I've stub-sorted the articles I've found, and tidied up one or two, but tagged most as "dab pages in need of cleanup". Please stop this pattern of article creation: if you want to create an article for a given name, link it in the standard way from the existing dab page and move into it the entries for articles for people with given name plus surname. Thanks. PamD 09:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

To keep the discussion in one place I'll copy your reply here:
(Reply posted at User talk:PamD and copied here by Pam D):
There needs to be a consistent pattern established for these name articles. Not all of them include lists of people and probably should not since there are far too many Mary's or Elizabeth's, etc. Most of the name stubs I have created are referred back to the article List of most popular given names. The Disambiguation bot tags all of the articles that are Disambiguation pages and notes that they are almost always a mistake. When that template is left in place yet another bot comes along and links articles to bio articles that have nothing to do with the given name. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by a "consistent pattern", but in terms of article names it's not the case. If there is no other article on Xxx, then an article on it as a given name just goes at "Xxx". If there is something else which is the primary usage, then it goes at "Xxx (given name)". Disambiguation is not used when not needed. If a list of people named Xxx plus surname exists in a dab page, then if either "List of people named Xxx" or a page on the given name is created, the list should be moved to that page. I don't understand what you're saying about "the disambiguation bot", or about "links articles to bio articles that have nothing to do with the given name": could you clarify, perhaps show examples of what you're talking about? Thanks. PamD 12:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The disambiguation bot is User:DPL bot. The other bot made its appearance a few months back when another user attempted to clean up the disambiguation links. It linked names to bio articles -- i.e. the name Abraham to the patriarch Abraham and other Biblical names to the Biblical personages rather than to articles about the specific name; various Muslim names to historical personages important in Islam. That might have been accomplished with a tool such as Dab solver but you'd likely see which it was if you go far enough back on the history of the List of most popular given names page. It took a fair amount of time to clean that up, since I thought it was confusing to users and inaccurate. Some of these names appeared obscure enough to me that they didn't necessarily need their own articles; the various disambiguation pages included a line or two indicating that they were given names and had a specific meaning. When I deliberately linked back to the disambiguation pages, the DPL bot comes along and adds its link along with a form message such as the one above that "Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles." Either way, I think there ought to be one format for the various name articles or the DPL bot should be reformatted to leave intentional links to disambiguation pages alone. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Some concerns with your articles[edit]

I've looked through some of your recent articles at User talk:Moonriddengirl#Close paraphrasing?/Remove autopatrolled status?. Would you consider voluntarily having autopatrolled removed from your account until you can show that the problems have been addressed in your articles? Ryan Vesey 19:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

"Romanov" surname[edit]

Please stop deleting my edits on the Russian Imperial family surnames. It's widely known that members of the European royal families doesn't have last names, but for some reason you stubbornly continue to argue that Russian royal family is expect from that rule. But the point is that even if they had a surname it would be Holstein-Gottorp, and not Romanov. Romanov family name did't appear until 1917 year. This is a very well known fact and I was surprised that the articles in Wikipedia contain incorrect information. I corrected it, but you continue to insist on this misspelling for some reason. Urfinze (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Notifying user about missing file description(s) (bot - disable)[edit]

File:Frittie.jpg missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 22:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you![edit]

Cheeseburger.png Hello, thanks for your warn message, I also appreciate your work. I'm fleshier on this site and I real want to get involved in contributing to the pages according to my knowledge. Thanks in advance! Timberson (talk) 06:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

June 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of most popular given names may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of most popular given names, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Finn, Reuben and Magdalena (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edits?[edit]

Hi, why did you revert my edits on "Anna"? I can understand that perhaps you'd like "Annika" to sit near "Anika", but as far as I can see, the list is sorted alphabetically. You also re-inserted a duplicate entry for "Annette" which surely can't be right? Thanks. Deadstar (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your reply on my talk page. You are right, Anette and Annette are two different spellings of the same name. However, that is not the issue. "Annette" appears in the list twice. I removed the one that was not in alphabetical order & merged it with the other. Why did you revert this change? It is not logical to have the same name in there multiple times.
Also, why did you revert the other change I made, which was to move "Annika" to be in line with the alphabetical order as is the rest of the list. You can answer here, I'll keep an eye on it. Thank you. Deadstar (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 17, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 17, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna

Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia (1901–18) was the youngest daughter of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, the last sovereign of Imperial Russia, and his wife Alexandra Fyodorovna. Anastasia had three older sisters (Olga, Tatiana, and Maria), and a younger brother (Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsarevich of Russia). She was executed with her family in an extrajudicial killing by members of Cheka, the Bolshevik secret police, on 17 July 1918. Persistent rumors of her possible escape circulated, fueled by the fact that the location of her burial was unknown during Communist rule. Several women falsely claimed to have been Anastasia, the most notorious of whom was Anna Anderson; DNA testing after Anderson's death showed no link between her and the Imperial family. Anastasia's possible survival has been conclusively disproved. The mass grave near Ekaterinburg which held the remains of the Tsar, his wife, and three daughters was revealed in 1991, but the bodies of Alexei Nikolaevich and one of his sisters—either Anastasia or Maria—were not discovered there. However, the charred bodies of the two missing siblings were found in 2007 and identified using DNA testing. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of most popular given names, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ivana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Precious[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

ladies of nobility
Thank you for quality articles on personalities, especially Russian ladies from the late 19th/early 20th century such as Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia, written with "diligent research, and high quality intelligent prose", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

That's nice of you, Gerda. This editor has recently called an edit in which I twice changed "ca." to "c.", to have the article in question comply with the MOS:, vandalism (since he used no edit summary apart from the automatically generated one). I would like to see an explanation of your action, Bookworm857158367. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 547th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of most popular given names, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rasmus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Rasmus (given name)[edit]

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.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Rasmus (given name). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Rasmus. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Rasmus – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. PamD 07:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Bookworm857158367. You have new messages at Josve05a's talk page.
Message added 17:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(tJosve05a (c) 17:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of most popular given names (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Darius (given name), Finn (given name), Reuben (given name) and Magdalena (given name)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to prevent a further edit war[edit]

Hi there. This is the line you insist is accurate: "...is built on the story of Anastasia's fictional escape from Russia and her subsequent quest for recognition."

In the animated film, she does not escape Russia. That's the bottom line. There is no escaping. She ends up in an orphanage outside of St. Petersburg. She's still there, in Russia, at the implied age of around 18 and therefore a young adult. When she does leave Russia, she is not being forced nor is she escaping anything. She leaves of her own free will under no pressure. Her intentions are to leave and discover who she is- recognition is not a character motivation in the animated film. This is why I tweaked the sentence- at the very least it's misleading and vague. I did not add an additional sentence to make the description overly lengthy and those interested can still check out the separate article. If you'd like to rewrite the one sentence description of the animated film I put up, there's no problem with that so long as it reflects the actual plot of the movie. However, the one you keep reverting to, as explained above, is incorrect and inaccurate and should not be used.

Thanks, (Tsukiakari (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC))


Half Million Award[edit]

Million award logo.svg The Half Million Award
For your contributions to bring Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia (estimated annual readership: 739,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:


If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of most popular given names, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Benedict (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Olga Nikolaevna's Page[edit]

Hello Bookworm, I am here to respond to your message on my talk page about my changes to Olga Nikolaevna's wikipedia page. I am assuming the change that you are referring to is the changing of the captions on some of the photos. On this photo: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/OTMA1915-2.jpg the aption lists the people in the photo as being OTMA and Sophie Buxhoeveden. This photo is clearly OTMA with their mother, Alexandra Feodorovna. The nose and the chin show it being the Empress and the outfit she is wearing is later seen in photos of her at Dnieper. Furthermore, the photo was not taken in 1915, but in May of 1916 when the family visited a battleship in South Crimea. The photo of OTM and soldier Pavel Voronov is also clearly not 1911. Olga began wearing her hair pulled back into a low pony-tail with a bow in 1910 in preparation for her putting her hair up the next year. It is more likely that it is 1909 or very early 1910. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kissmekassy (talkcontribs) 19:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of most popular given names may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Lady Louise Windsor[edit]

Information icon Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you.--John (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The information in the article was sourced with a newspaper article. Removing cited information is inappropriate. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
We can't use tabloids to source information on living people; see WP:BLPSOURCES. --John (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of most popular given names, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages William and Mila (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of most popular given names, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Casper (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of most popular given names, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages William and Casper (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of most popular given names (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to William, Magdalena (given name), Casper, Mihajlo and Mila

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, 10.4.0.34 (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wohlk brothers (1920 blizzard victims)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Wohlk brothers (1920 blizzard victims) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence they meet WP:GNG

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Secret account 01:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

List of most popular given names ‎[edit]

Per WP:OVERLINK we do not link common country names. We certainly don't need to make repeated links for such terms. --John (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of most popular given names may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of most popular given names may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)