User talk:Paul A

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

Article on Dr. H. K Kaul[edit]

Dear Mr. Paul,

An article on me in the Wikipedia has been pending editing for quite some time. Can you help? Regards. H K Kaul [e-mail:} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaul H K (talkcontribs) 12:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I see that it's already been explained to you that the article is not in a satisfactory condition, and you have been given some advice about what its major shortcomings are. The best help I can give you is to recommend that you heed the advice you have already been given. — Paul A (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

About your comment and deletion : Wikipedia is not a poetry anthology[edit]

I looked up wiki entries of few notable Poets and found some of their notable Poetry. Could you please elaborate why this particular Poem was deleted? I know the article is not upto the mark in a lot of ways and we should be working on it. But why delete one of the most important poems of the poet when it seems a norm in other articles? Koteshwor (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the poet articles you speak of, so I don't know what might be different with them, but the rule as I understand it is that poetry should be quoted only as an integrated part of the article's discussion. For example, it is not sufficient to say "Here is a poem by Bhupi Sherchan:", but it might be appropriate to say "One of the characteristics of Bhupi Sherchan's style is [such-and-such], as can be seen in these verses from [poem]:".
There was also another consideration, which I didn't mention in my edit reason because I thought perhaps it was too obvious: This is the English-language Wikipedia, and there is an expectation that English-language readers can read any article without missing something because it's in another language. That doesn't necessarily mean you can't quote from another language at all, but if you do it should be accompanied by a suitable translation into English.
Paul A (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


Thank you very much for pointing out the sorting issue. I didn't realize it had been solved. The page you mentioned also has a lot of guidance and answers a number of questions I had for sorting names in other languages. Happy Wiki'ing--FeanorStar7 10:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Accounting networks and associations[edit]


Re: Accounting networks and associations

I work freelance for an international accounting network, Russell Bedford International.

Russell Bedford have seen the Wikipedia Accounting networks and associations article, and have provided me with a list of points they think are out of date, better tables/data to include, and additional links. They have asked me to edit or incorporate these into the article as it currently stands.

I am contacting you because it looks as though you input the first edits on the article when it was originally written, in September 2011? I don't want to go barging in all over your work, but it does look as though some parts are now out of date.

What's the best way of doing this? Should I send you an attachment (Word) with proposed amendments and ask you to review? Or should I go in, input proposed changes and then send you a link to the revised draft?

Let me know how you'd prefer me to handle.

You can reach me at, or please post something into the Talk page and I will pick up.

Kind regards,

Hillary RussellBedfordInternational

RussellBedfordInternational (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you have the wrong person – I have made only one edit to the Accounting networks and associations page, and that was a minor copy-edit. The first and largest editor was User:Robertacc (who doesn't seem to have been active on Wikipedia for some years now).
Speaking generally, the rule on Wikipedia is that if you believe you can improve an article you should go ahead and do so. Articles don't have owners or gatekeepers, and changes to articles are automatically tracked so they can easily be reviewed (and if necessary undone) later. (This is explained in more detail on the pages Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Help:Page history respectively.)
By the way, I should also point out that your current username is considered inappropriate under Wikipedia's Username policy, under the rules regarding Usernames implying shared use. I recommend that you read the username policy and consider changing to a more appropriate username.
-- Paul A (talk) 05:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Article notability notification[edit]

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote recently, Kath Soucie, has been tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: "Kath Soucie"news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 02:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Bot Use[edit]

How did you use the bot to re add the citations? I was trying to fix that but got lazy. I saw that you did it in a way that kept my changes, but added yours. Very neat(Lowkeyvision (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC))

I didn't use a bot, I did it by hand. Had the edit box open in one tab, and the edit diff from the first time I added the citations in another; copied the relevant markup from the latter into the former. (And while I was at it, I did the same for a couple of other editors' contributions, including Addbot's interwiki link update, which is why I mentioned Addbot in the edit reason.) — Paul A (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I was wondering if you had some tips on how to improve pharmacology pages. I have improved Diphenhyramine page, but I am looking for guidance on how to improve other pharmacology pages. Also, I have a picture of the benadryl box(Diphenhydramine in US) and I was wondering how I should go about uploading the image because it is a trademark. Thank you :)(Lowkeyvision (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC))
Knowing my own limitations, I suggest you ask the editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology, who are more likely to be familiar with the best ways to handle pharmacology pages. My own beat is more general, and I wouldn't want to give you any advice that turned out to be wrong. — Paul A (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Lists of listed buildings in Wigtownshire[edit]

Thank you for creating the Lists of listed buildings in Dumfriesshire, and also for that of Kirkcudbrightshire. They bring together all the listed buildings, their wiki commons photos and the wikipedia articles into the one place. They all come under the District Council Region of "Dumfries and Galloway" as these lists are in current use. Will you being creating a Lists of listed buildings in Wigtownshire to complete the trio under the District Council Region of "Dumfries and Galloway" ? Thank you. Scotire (talk)

Yes.Paul A (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Molvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi[edit]

Hi Paul A, thank you very much for the Edit (category). Regards ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Use of derviative works templates[edit]

As the leading editor in terms of edit count of {{Oliver Twist}}, I am alerting you to the discussion about the use of derivative works templates in author bio articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels#Derivative works and cultural references templates. We are discussing whether they should be removed from or collapsed or left alone in the author's articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to With One Last Breath 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Italic titles[edit]

Hi. Thanks for the advice. I'll make use of it in future edits. Jimknut (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kaufman Films, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Watching the Detectives (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) 11:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

Paul, I'm a novice at setting up Wikipedia pages and I apparently didn't do things correctly. However, you've remove some vital information from the page I created for Van Howard.

1. The citation by Clifton Howard Vandevender was direct information from Van Howard before he died. 2. "Significant changes such as birth name and claiming a person has died must be supported by reference to a reliable source." I didn't see any articles about his death. If I could find an article or Obituary in the Dallas Morning News, would that suffice?

After Van died, I updated the Wikipedia page and I haven't logged on in a long time.

Do you have any recommendations on how to satisfy the following issues? I don't know what citation style is unclear. Also, as for the notability guidelines, Van played for many years with Ray Price and several others on Ray Price's page have their own page.

This article has an unclear citation style. (March 2011) The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. (March 2011)

NMantooth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmantooth (talkcontribs) 18:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The important thing you need to understand is Wikipedia's policy requiring Verifiability. This is explained in detail on the page Wikipedia:Verifiability, which I recommend you take the time to read, but might be briefly summarised as "Readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up." This means that the question you need to consider when adding information to Wikipedia is not so much 'Do I know this is true?' as 'How will other people who are not me know this is true?'
One specific consequence is that we can't accept "Personal conversation with X" as a source, because there's no way for anybody who isn't you or X to confirm whether the conversation took place, or what was said during it. (Except perhaps by tracking down you and X and asking, but we can't expect readers to do that, nor can we reasonably ask you and X to put up with having random strangers drop by to ask if it's true what Wikipedia says they said.)
An article in a reputable daily newspaper would be considered an acceptable source, because newspapers aren't (presumably) in the habit of making things up, and if a reader wanted to find out if a referenced article says what Wikipedia says it says, the newspaper archive would have procedures to deal with that. An obituary in a newspaper is probably the most common type of verifiable source used to support a claim that someone has died.
Verifiability also relates to the issue about "unclear citation style". Part of verifiability is making it clear to the reader not only what sources were used in writing the article, but which parts of the article are due to which source. (This is usually done using footnotes.) A long article with just a list of sources at the end makes things difficult for a reader who wants to verify a particular piece of information, because they have to work through each listed source to they find the one they need.
Uncertain notability often, again, comes down to verifiability: the question is not 'Do you know that Van Howard is notable?' but 'How can somebody who doesn't already know about Van Howard be sure that Van Howard is notable?'. Wikipedia:Notability (music) has a list of ways to demonstrate a musician's notability, which include high-selling albums, major industry awards, or just lots of coverage in (reliable) news media.
One thing I think it's important to note is that playing in a notable band does not, by itself, qualify a musician as notable enough for a Wikipedia article of his very own. Many of the members of Ray Price's band went on to have significant solo careers, and have articles in Wikipedia on that account, not on account of having played with Ray Price. If Van Howard's career consisted of playing in famous bands, he's entitled to be mentioned in the articles about those bands, but if he doesn't demonstrate notability on his own he may not qualify for a separate article that's only about him.
I hope this makes things clearer. — Paul A (talk) 10:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Message on Van Howard Talk Page[edit]


I left you a message on the Van Howard talk page a few days ago. I don't know if you are monitoring that page. I didn't know how to tag you so you would see it but I read on your talk page that I should put the comment on my talk page. (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)NMantooth

I am monitoring that page, I've just been away from Wikipedia for a few days. I've replied to that message now (on that page, so the conversation stays in one place). — Paul A (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Images of Ralph Nader[edit]

Category:Images of Ralph Nader, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Petronella Barker b 1942 two Petronella Barkers and wrong photographs of the first.[edit]

The photographs are of the wrong Petronella Barker. I could upload a proper photograph taken by the person herself so there's no copyright problem but I am unsure how to do it. Thank you Rhubarbone (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

First of all, can you explain what photographs you're talking about? The Petronella Barker (actress born 1942) article has no photographs on it. — Paul A (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does have the wrong photo on the right hand side when you click onto Google. I'm not sure why the right photos were taken off anyhow in the first place as it was to distinguish between the two Petronella Barkers. I realize there are wrong photos everywhere by 'agorithyms' and 'bots' or something futuristically mathematical but I don't know how to get it right let alone 'clean up' the article! My parents' articles are all wrong too - I don't know who put them on it in the first place - and not a thing goes blue. Oh dear oh dear and I thought it would be so simple! There are the wrong photos there, do believe me, and it say 'report' which I do repeatedly to no avail whatever. I'm fed up with the muddle of it. How can I get it right? Please help me do it. I mustn't let it beat me. Thank you. Rhubarbone (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

If it has the wrong photo on Google, that's a problem with Google, not with Wikipedia, and there's nothing we can do about it directly. The only sure way to fix it would be to get action from Google.
That said, adding a photo to the Wikipedia article might help, and wouldn't hurt.
The reason the photo that used to be on the article was removed, according to the records, was that the person who added it didn't make a clear statement that Wikipedia was allowed to use it. (To be precise, they said Wikipedia could use it, but it wasn't clear that they had the authority to say so.) If you know of an appropriate photo that is available, or can be made available, for Wikipedia's use, there shouldn't be any problem with adding it.
Wikipedia:Image use policy explains what kinds of images Wikipedia can use, and what one should do when adding a photo to avoid uncertainty about whether Wikipedia can use it. If you have any questions, please ask. — Paul A (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Amos Guttman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Israeli (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) 11:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Mark Heaney[edit]

My Name is Mark Heaney and I have just discovered my page has been removed by you as I posted a link to my official facebook page.

Apparently this is against Wikipedia rules which I had no knowledge of.

I am happy to remove the link.

I find this all totally over the top and would like my page which is an important part of my online presence put back up please.

I added more information to the page as it stated it would be removed as there was not enough actually on the page so can't win really.

Like i said I would appreciate the page being put back up.

Mark Heaney — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genekrupa2477 (talkcontribs) 07:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The link is not the problem. The problem is that the entire article text is copied word-for-word from Mark Heaney's Facebook page. There are two major potential issues with this, the immediately relevant one being that copying entire pages from other web sites without gaining the appropriate permission can get us into a lot of trouble.
If you are, as you say, Mark Heaney yourself, then the situation can easily be resolved. All you have to do is give Wikipedia permission to use the text. The notice on the Mark Heaney page includes an explanation of how to do this: click on the link marked If you hold the copyright to this text, you can license it in a manner that allows its use on Wikipedia.
(Mind you, if you are Mark Heaney, you should bear in mind that taking such a substantial interest in your own article may be in breach of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy.) — Paul A (talk) 09:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you got nothing better to do. I am Mark Heaney. So your saying I have to get permission from myself to post the information on my page and clear it with Wikipedia but as I am also taking an interest in my own page and why this keeps happening is also in breach of Wikipedia rules. So with that in mind not much I can do. Why have you taken such an interest in my page and gone to all this trouble to check what has been copied from facebook? Never come across this before. The information was put up there by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emi2477 (talkcontribs) 08:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Remember that this is, famously, the Encyclopedia That Anybody Can Edit. Anybody can edit this page and post a message saying "I am Mark Heaney". Take five minutes to think about the damage that could be caused if we took the word of somebody who said "I am Mark Heaney" and was lying – you don't really want us to be that gullible, any more than we do.
Please, follow the instructions you were given about how to confirm your identity with Wikipedia. It's really not at all painful, and if you'd done it when you were first given them, this whole sorry business would have been sorted out weeks ago. — Paul A (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry business, Lying? There was nothing wrong with that page until you for some strange reason you got involved. Do not start to patronise or be rude to me. Good manners cost nothing and I take offence at your accusations basically accusing me of fraudulent behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emi2477 (talkcontribs) 08:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I got involved because I saw someone copy your web page – someone who, please remember, didn't say anything then about being Mark Heaney or otherwise having Mark Heaney's permission. Someone who, as far as I had any way of knowing, might have been up to no good. When I reported the page as a potential copyright issue – please also note the word "potential" – I was trying to help.
You'll have noticed that I accept your claim to be Mark Heaney. The point you need to understand now is that it's not up to me. The decision has been out of my hands since I made the initial report. When I called this a "sorry business", I meant that I'm sorry you've wasted so much time trying to convince me I'm wrong when that won't make any difference to the outcome. — Paul A (talk) 09:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

RE photographs Petronella Barker[edit]

Thank you very much for your helpful advice.

I need to get hold of Google somehow then.

Regarding the photograph of Petronella Barker which I-Never-Cry took off Wikipedia, it was Ghosted Bread who put it on, who is in fact my daughter, and Rhubarbone or Ghosted Bread could upload somehow a photograph taken of Petronella Barker of undisputed copyright therefore. One or the other could also could upload similar photographs of Eric Barker and Pearl Hackney and at least get it right on Wikipedia. Then move on to attempting to contact Google. It will never be completely right I do realize that but it should be righter than it is in my view. (I think may be the 'Geeks' do it as a bit of fun sometimes.)

On a separate subject, I put in some parental facts about John Skyppe, on his Wikipedia page, who was the almoner to Anne Boleyn born in the late 15th century in the UK. I have done some research on old wills in Norfolk. The sources are 'primary'(the actual document), not 'secondary' (an internet source). Is that acceptable? It doesn't go blue. If someone were interested, they would have to go to the Norfolk Records Office as they have copyright or order the document online. No-one has questioned it but is that OK? I could put some more on about him as the Dictionary of National Biography have got some facts wrong but I daren't do it in case it's not the right thing to do.

I shall try and find out how to upload a photograph of Petronella Barker etc and do it in the near future. Thank you very much again for your help. Rhubarbone (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the John Skyppe research: Wikipedia has a core policy of no original research. That is, Wikipedia cannot be the first place the results of new research are published. The link explains this in detail, but the short version is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means its role is to gather and arrange existing knowledge, not to produce new knowledge. Being a publisher of original research requires systems for judging the reliability and usefulness of the research that Wikipedia does not have, and prefers to leave to publishers for whom it is part of their role.
If you know of anywhere the information from the wills has already been published – in a magazine or journal article, perhaps, or a history book – that would be an acceptable source for Wikipedia. It would not have to be available on the internet; though Wikipedia's editors use a lot of online sources because they're easily accessible, a publication that is accessible only by travelling to an actual bookshop or library would still be considered accessible enough. But it does have to have been published in a form intended for distribution to the general public, by a publisher with some editorial standards.
Good luck with the photographs. — Paul A (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dawn Harper 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Retrieved on 2010-06-07.</ref><ref>[ Dawn Harper]], USA Track and Field.</ref> On March 23, 2013, Harper married hometown friend, Alonzo Nelson. The

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

On Abbas Rajabifard Article[edit]

Thank you for your advice, I will write a new article. I just need a couple of days, please do not delete the article. Thanks Mohegh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohegh (talkcontribs) 08:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Abbas Rajabifard New Article[edit]

Hi, I have added a new temporary article about Dr. Abbas Rajabifard on the address below: The article is written based on Mr. Rajabifard CV, and the information available on his page on the web site of University of Melbourne. I got it approved by the university administration. If there are still issues that are to be solved, please give me a chance to edit it before you decide to delete the article. Thanks! Mahssa Mohegh Mohegh —Preceding undated comment added 09:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Please check Abbas Rajabifard Article[edit]

Hi, I have added a new temporary article about Dr. Abbas Rajabifard on the address below a while ago: The article is written based on Mr. Rajabifard CV, and the information available on his page on the web site of University of Melbourne. I got it approved by the university administration. If there are still issues that are to be solved, please give me a chance to edit it before you decide to delete the article. Thanks! Mohegh (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC) Mohegh

Chris Kennedy[edit]

Re your comment on the birthdate change.

The original date on the article was 1958. Chris thought it was a great joke being 10 years younger so don't be so sensitive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of content for tikona[edit]

Why do you care so much being someone from Australia? Of course there isn't any published content available. This is india.

Please do read this message it took me 3 minutes just to get to this talk section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Why should I, a Wikipedia editor, not care about the quality of a Wikipedia article? I don't see what difference it makes what country I'm from.
The importance of verifiability and the avoidance of original research are two of Wikipedia's core content policies, and you really should read both of them if you intend to contribute to Wikipedia. — Paul A (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 11[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.

Alex Elena (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Indie
Kris Thomas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Count Me In (song)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Azubuike Wokocha[edit]

Hello Paul A, I saw you reviewed the article Azubuike Wokocha on December 17, 2013. Today RadioFan put it up for Deletion. But I believe the article meets notability, it discusses a radio personality, recording artist and music producer who has won an award for his production work. Please I'll appreciate it if you can kindly check it out and help remove that Article For Deletion notice. Thank You.Afrowildchild (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Mischa Maisky[edit]

Thanks for revert! Can you please put this article in your watchlist? You see, there is a user here who believes that such infoboxes are wrong (in his opinion), and deletes them, I tried to catch him with edit warring but no cigar. It will be very kind of you if you will see edits made by Toccata quarta, make sure you will revert them as well. Many thanks. Also watch Vadim Repin since the user have tendency to remove infoboxes from any classical musicians that are mostly Soviet.--Mishae (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Leona Lewis. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Hello. This edit summary: of yours does not show good faith toward the editor to changed it back to the musical artist template. His argument is that Lewis is first and foremost a singer, and thus that is the template most applicable. Although I personally agree with you, it would have perhaps been better to visit the talk page first before to see why it was changed back rather than using sarcasm in your summary.  — ₳aron 10:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't using sarcasm; I was entirely serious. In retrospect I may have failed to clearly convey what I was being serious about.
I don't especially care whether the page has a person infobox or a musical artist infobox, but if a decision is made to change one to the other, it should be done properly. Merely changing the name of the infobox, without overhauling its contents, results in a damaged infobox (which may even, as on this occasion, have an entire second infobox of the same type wrapped inside it).
By the way, since you've raised the subject of how to interact with other editors: I advise you to consider your audience before using any boilerplate message that assumes the recipient is a Wikipedia newcomer. If the receipient is actually an experienced Wikipedian – and especially if they were already an experienced Wikipedian when you were a Wikipedia newcomer – there's a danger that they'll feel insulted, and annoying your listener or making them feel defensive is not a good way to get them to listen to you. — Paul A (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
You was being serious, but it read very sarcastic still. I can't help that the bot generates it for assuming that you are a newcomer, I simply clicked on the assume good faith option. As I said, I actually support the edit you made, but I can see how the other editor who changed it back to the other version may feel insulted by your edit summary. If I thought it, he definitely thought it.  — ₳aron
Of course you can't help the bot's wording, but there's no rule saying you have to use the bot; if the bot's wording is inappropriate, you are allowed to write your own message. :)
Having slept on it, I freely admit that you're right: I did write a bad edit summary that could hurt the feelings of the editor whose edit I undid. There's no way to change the edit summary now, but I will endeavour to do better in future. — Paul A (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know it was going to say you're a newcomer. It shouldn't say that anyway, the templates shouldn't be just aimed at newcomers. Someone else came along yesterday and changed it back again, but he removed parts that shouldn't have been removed. I still prefer the person template.  — ₳aron

infobox background = non_performing_personnel[edit]

Now I suppose that infobox artist 'background' is a parameter to control the color. Do you know whether that is generally a special infobox paramter name? (During a visit to Craig Sharmat concerning his assistance with parent's fiction Nate the Great, I presumed that it meant career background before becoming notable.)

P.S. Yesterday I linked several terms in the lead paragraph. Now I see that backed up is a mistake; further, we have only backup bands and vocalists at backup (disambiguation) and I don't know whether there is a good target for that. Meanwhile I haven't a clue about the neighboring term 'cues' (disambiguation cue).

--P64 (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

In the musical artist infobox, 'background' is both a description of career background and a control of the infobox color; it takes one of six pre-defined values, each of which is associated with a particular color. You may find a more detailed description, and a list of the allowed values, at Template:Infobox musical artist#background.
I don't have any suggestions about the links; I agree that the disambiguation pages don't appear to offer any good options. There may be no better course than to leave them unlinked. — Paul A (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Peter Stevens[edit]

Re: Deletion of rank before the name of Peter Stevens (RAF Officer). Please see the entry for Bertram James, which begins with his RAF rank.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrera57 (talkcontribs) 13:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've fixed it too. — Paul A (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI: Infrastructures[edit]

After the article was reverted for a fifth time, I decided to go through the AfD process to get an official consensus to restore the redirect. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infrastructures -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


Dear Paul A,

There is an article that has been nominated for deletion

This is an act of action involving deliberate destruction vandalism I believe as I see no reason for why it should be deleted.

Can help shed some light on this and any advice would be welcome.


Simon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimoninIceland (talkcontribs) 18:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

When an article is nominated for deletion, the notice at the top of the article contains the sentence "Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page." If you click on the link in "this article's entry", it will take you to a page that explains the reasons why it was nominated. If you do not think the reasons are sufficient, you can say so on that page.
Beyond that, here is a piece of advice you may find useful: don't go accusing other editors of deliberate vandalism just because they've done something you don't approve of. It's almost certainly not true, and even if it is true, making the accusation is unlikely to result in a co-operative and productive conversation.
Paul A (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Beau Coup[edit]

Hi Paul, thank you for your edits on the Beau Coup page. I was wondering if you had to change the header section. Amherst Records has sent an email to permissions giving me rights to use the back of the album cover to put in the spot I referenced. I see you took that away. Should I just change it when the picture is released for use on Wikipedia? Mmcard59 (talk) 05:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please. Add the image when it becomes available, but until then don't put any kind of placeholder message in the article, as that does not help the reader and only makes the page look untidy. — Paul A (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok great! Thanks for your help! I'm new to Wiki so I'm not very versed. Do you know how I will be notified the picture is available and ok to load on the page? Mmcard59 (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I haven't been personally involved in adding an image that needed to be released, so I'm not sure. I think usually what you do is watch the image's description page, and there will be a notice added there when the permission is processed. — Paul A (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok I will check that out. Also, I changed the heading in the description box to read "Beau Coup Band" to differentiate it from other Beau Coup's or Beaucoup's that may arise. Mmcard59 (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

A request[edit]

Paul, do you mind if I restore the photographer's name at DJ Cassidy? [1] I went to some trouble to get the image, and they were very kind to give us such a nice one (I wasn't expecting that). So partly as a matter of courtesy, and partly because it's interesting, I'd like to add the name of the notable photographer. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions is specific: "image credits in the infobox image are discouraged, even if the artist is notable, since the infobox should only contain key facts of the article's subject". — Paul A (talk) 05:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Oleseng Shuping[edit]

Hi! Thanks for listing Oleseng Shuping at WP:CP. I'd appreciate your opinion on what should happen to it. I'm trying to process it, and have run into a minor glitch. Given the short history and blatant copy-paste, I nominated it for speedy deletion as G12; speedy was declined by Ronhjones, on the grounds that it is already tagged as a copyvio. He suggested asking your opinion ... so here I am. Did you feel that the topic was an important one? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC) (I've watch-listed this page)

It's not so much that I think the page is particularly worth saving, as that I personally tend not to use speedy deletion templates except in extremely blatant cases. I don't think speedy would have flown in this case, anyway, because the page's creator has asserted on the talk page that they have permission to use the text. (I don't know if they've backed that up with any of the formal verification methods, though.) — Paul A (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)