User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive01

User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive01 (May-June 2007)

Welcome

Hello Pdfpdf,

Welcome and enjoy Wikipedia. Your edits are much appreciated.

These links might help you with your contributions:

For Wikipedia-wide involvement, visit the Community Portal and the Village Pump.

Be sure to check out Australian resources, like the Australia Portal, Australian Wikipedians' Notice Board, Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight, New Australian Articles and Australian stub articles. You can list yourself at Australian Wikipedians.

Also, assuming you're an Adelaidean, have you considered participating in WikiProject Adelaide? Help is always needed!

By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Preferably, use four tildes (~~~~), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page.

Again, welcome.--cj | talk 06:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—

Hi CJ.
Thank you for your welcome and your extremely polite comments and suggestions. It's nice to be appreciated.
Some questions:

I assume this was triggered by my changes to the Fairbairn site?
Why are you "assuming" I'm an Adelaidean? (My User page is quite explicit. Or are you just being polite?)
Similarly, why do you mention the four tildes? (I've always signed all my comments with four tildes - I thought. Did I miss one somewhere?)

Again, thank you for your welcome and expression of appreciation. Pdfpdf 12:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. CJ is a much cooler usename than pdfpdf!!

—

Hi again. The message I posted is a boilerplate welcome I post when I see a user talk redlink. I feel like a sod for not customising it for you; just disregard the parts which obviously don't apply. Do feel free, however, to contact me if you have any problems or questions. Otherwise, happy editing!--cj | talk 12:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—

Thanks CJ Pdfpdf 12:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another confused contributor

Dear Jogers,

Recently, I've been using AutoWikiBrowser to fix some capitalization errors in band names and titles of films, books, albums and songs.
Why? (Aren't there more useful things to do that will annoy less people?)

Also, you're not particularly consistent in your corrections. For example, on Romantic Guitars: Amour#Track Listing, you've changed Just The Way You Are to Just the Way You Are, and I Heard It Through The Grapevine to I Heard It Through the Grapevine,but you have NOT changed What A Fool Believes to What a Fool Believes. How do you decide which ones you'll change, which ones you won't change, and what you'll change them to?

By-the-way: If you look at the contents of the pages I Heard It Through the Grapevine and I Heard It Through the Grapevine (album), you'll find a variety of capitalizations have been used on those pages, including I Heard It through the Grapevine and I Heard it Through the Grapevine. Have you given any thought to correcting the content of those articles too? (Personally, I would have thought the "correct" capitalization would have been one of "I heard it through the grapevine", "I heard it through the Grapevine" or "I heard it through The Grapevine" ... )

Also: Can you try explaining (again) why what the artist/author chose to use for the capitalization is an error? I'm afraid I couldn't understand your explanation(s). I would have thought that whatever the author chose as the title was, by definition, the "correct" title. For reasons I don't understand, you don't agree.

Thanks for your patience in reading this. I look forward to your reply. Pdfpdf 15:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—————

I do this because we use standard English capitalization on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD#Capitalization and Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Capitalization. These pages explain how titles and band names should be capitalized. I'm sorry if you are annoyed by my recent editing pattern.

I don't exactly decide which ones to fix. I use the software called AutoWikiBrowser which automatically makes changes from the set of regular expressions I created at User:Jogers/Capitalization.xml. After AWB apply the changes, I review the diff and save the page. I usually fix any other capitalization errors I spot before I save the page but I'm rather careful with changing links because sometimes the article may need to be moved first. That's the reason why I didn't change "What A Fool Believes" to "What a Fool Believes" in Romantic Guitars: Amour. I've noticed it though and I already have this page in my bookmarks so it is going to be fixed soon. Sometimes I may miss some titles altogether. Please excuse me if that happens.

The standard capitalization is "I Heard It Through the Grapevine". Relevant policies and guidelines I listed above explain why. I've been planning to go through all the pages I have in my list and fix capitalization in them for some time (I currently check only the pages that link to them). I promise that I'll do this soon.

Artists are generally inconsistent in the way they capitalize titles of their albums and songs (except for Japanese artists, perhaps). It has been discussed on several occasions and it's generally agreed that standardized capitalization should be used instead of what you can find on album cover or official website. This is what most secondary and tertiary sources do and what most style guides recommend.

I hope this clears the things up a little. Best regards, Jogers (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—————

Jogers, thanks for the reply. Yes, it did "clear things up a little". (A lot, actually.)

"I'm sorry if you are annoyed by my recent editing pattern."
I'm not (and wasn't) annoyed. (However, looking at your talk page, it seems that there are plenty of others who are!)
No, I'm just puzzled that anyone would actually want to spend many hours of their leasure time turning Capital Letters into lower case letters. It can't be very exciting. And, based on the contents of your talk page, it is not appreciated very much either. There must be many Wikipedia projects that are more interesting, more useful, and more appreciated. (E.g. The sort of stuff that people like Fisherjs and Engineer Bob do, which actually adds value to music pages.)

"I do this because we use standard English capitalization on Wikipedia."
No you don't. There is no "standard English capitalisation", nor "standard American capitalization" either, for that matter.
What you use is your interpretation of the Wikipedia Naming conventions and Manuals of Style.
"These pages explain how titles and band names should be capitalized."
No they don't. These pages state how titles and band names should be capitalized in Wikipedia - I can't find any explanation, nor justification, nor discussion, nor basis for the choice.
Example: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Capitalization

In titles of songs or albums and band names, the standard rule in the English language is to capitalize words that:

Are the first or the last word in the title
Are not conjunctions ("and", "but", "or", "nor"), prepositions ("to", "over", "in"), articles ("an", "a", "the"), or the "to" in infinitives.

Who's "standard rule in the English language"? Reference please! Note that in other situations, the Manual of Style implies or states rules which give quite different results. Why is there a separate and different rule for Albums?
So, in summary, they are an arbitrarily chosen set of rules agreed by concenus of an arbitrary group of people, they contain ambiguities and conflicts/inconsistencies, and hence, they are open to interpretation. In my opinion, it would foster a more congenial environment if you were more flexible in your interpretation of them.

Changing topic: Thanks for explaining AWB to me. Most appreciated. And thanks for explaining and/or clarifying the other topics too - also appreciated.

Regards, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—————

You are right, fixing capitalization errors throughout Wikipedia isn't the most appreciable job you can imagine. It's not very exciting either but I believe that it makes the encyclopedia a little bit better by helping to maintain consistency. Despite what you may think it's not the only thing I do here.

The Manual of Style is not an arbitrary set of rules. It is largely based on authoritative style guides like The Chicago Manual of Style and Fowler’s Modern English Usage. The rules are the same for all titles. Albums, songs, films, books etc. are discussed separately just for convenience, I guess (some central guideline would be nice, though). Here are some references: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Could you point me to the ambiguities and inconsistencies you are referring to? Jogers (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—————

"I believe that it makes the encyclopedia a little bit better by helping to maintain consistency."
Yes. However, there are some (e.g. 1) who think (believe?) it is vandalism, and then there are others (like me and many of those on your talk page) who don't think it's important enough to argue about. And then there are those who disagree with the MoS.

"Despite what you may think"- that's an interesting choice of words - "it's not the only thing I do here". I've read your user page. I know you do other things. I'm sorry if you are annoyed by my comments/observations; it has not been my intention to annoy you.

"The Manual of Style is not an arbitrary set of rules. It is largely based on authoritative style guides like The Chicago Manual of Style and Fowler’s Modern English Usage."
That statement seems to support my observation that it is arbitrary! The contents of both the Chicago MoS and Fowlers are arbitrary. (Even if they were identical - which they're not - their content would still be arbitrary.) The decision on which manuals the Wikipedia MoS would be based on is arbitrary. The fact that the MoS is "largely based on", rather than "is a copy of" is also arbitrary. This doesn't mean the MoS is necessarily "bad" or "wrong" (both of which are arbitrary subjective opinions), but nevertheless, it is arbitrary.

"I guess some central guideline would be nice"
Yes. A capital-S Standard would be even nicer, but you're not going to get one. English is a constantly evolving language. Any "Standard" would be out-of-date before the end of the month.

"The rules are the same ... Could you point me to the ambiguities and inconsistencies you are referring to?"
Certainly, but not tonight. I have a project deadline approaching far too quickly. If it's OK with you, I'll get back to you after the deadline. (Thanks for the references.)

Regards, Pdfpdf (talk) 06:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript:
I've just looked up the definition of "arbitrary", and see that there are several ways the word can be used - some of which are not what I'm trying to communicate.
The meaning I intend is "based on or subject to individual discretion or preference" [6].
It seems that there are other uses of the word that, if applied when reading my comments, would make them offensive. (e.g. "impulse or caprice", "Uncertain; random; accidental")
It is not my intention to be offensive. (talk) Pdfpdf 00:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—————

It is not vandalism and Jonomacdrones was a bit too fast to suggest that. I'm sure he doesn't think that way after I explained why I was doing this. I personally feel that replicating stylized typography and capitalization in articles about musical ensembles makes Wikipedia look more like a fansite than a professional publication but I left Matchbox Twenty and few other controversial names alone.

Your comments are welcome. I don't find them annoying or offensive but I'm wondering if you don't think it's important enough to argue about then why are you arguing about it?

I thought that you were suggesting that capitalization guidelines are agreed by an arbitrary group of Wikipedia editors. I was merely trying to point out that editorial staff of authoritative style guides may be slightly less arbitrary than that :-) Besides, I'm not sure if I would agree with the notion that their contents are "based on or subject to individual discretion or preference".

When refer to "capitalization standard" I only mean the convention followed by most English language publishers described in the relevant Wikipedia guidelines. It doesn't seem to change that much.

I'm anxious to hear from you about the ambiguities and inconsistencies that you have mentioned.

By the way, if you would like the link to your talk page to be the part of your signature you can set that in your preferences. See Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing your signature. Jogers (talk) 09:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—————

"Your comments are welcome." Thank you! "I don't find them annoying or offensive" Good.
"but I'm wondering if you don't think it's important enough to argue about then why are you arguing about it?" (Pause while he laughs out loud.) Fair comment! In that particular case, by argue I meant "fight verbally". Presumably you are interpreting argue as "discuss"? As you've probably already deduced, I love a good discussion, but I'm not too keen on verbal fights.

" ... I only mean the convention followed by most English language publishers ... " Good. So it seems that we're both on the same track here. The difference is that I don't think there is just one convention that most follow. I admit I haven't done an exhaustive study, so I'm not in a position to comment on "It doesn't seem to change that much.", but I have developed a different impression. I guess it's time to do some homework and turn my impression into an opinion supported by hard facts.

"I'm anxious to hear from you about the ambiguities and inconsistencies that you have mentioned." Yes, I know you are. I want to give you a thorough answer, and I don't currently have enough spare time to do that.

"By the way, ... " Well spotted! Thank you.
As enjoyable as this is, I'm afraid I must get on with other things now. Regards Pdfpdf 11:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—————

I meant a polite discussion, of course. I'm not too keen on verbal fights neither. Actually, I agree with you that following a certain convention is not a must but consistency is a good thing, isn't it? Good luck with your project! Jogers (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging The Winans pages

Thanks Souldier77. Both pages look much better now.
I'm new to Wikipedia and am not sure of the process for merging one page into another. Can you point me at the "instructions" please?
Regarding merging, what's to discuss? (i.e. I thought it was pretty obvious they should be merged.) Educate me please.
Regards (and thanks) (talk) Pdfpdf 01:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—————

Hey, I pretty much refreshed myself on "how it's done" by searching Wikipedia for "merge" and I found the Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages page. It looks like we should probably just do a redirect from Winans to The Winans so that no matter which one people send them to, it gets them to the right page. I can do it if you want me to... since I'm all in Wikipedia mode today. ;-) Souldier77 01:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—————

"It looks like we should probably just do a redirect from Winans to The Winans ..." I agree.
"I can do it if you want me to... since I'm all in Wikipedia mode today" Woo hoo! I'm not going to get in the way of someone who sounds that motivated!! Again, regards and thanks. (talk) Pdfpdf 02:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omaha Black Music Hall of Fame

Hi Freechild. Nice job on Omaha Black Music Hall of Fame! Well done. Thanks.
Note that, so far, there has only been the one group of inductions - in 2005. (There was no ceremony, nor inductions, in 2006). However, a ceremony is planned for 2007. (I can't remember where I saw the announcement; I'll add a link here when I find it again.)
I had in mind to have lists of inductees by year. (e.g. most of L.A. Carnival were inducted, but you've only mentioned Arno and Lester.) Are you OK with that?
I noticed you've added OBMHoF to "Museums in Nebraska". Is there a physical place called OBMHoF? If so, do you know where it is located? If not, should it be in the Museums list?
Cheers, Pdfpdf 01:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

———

Thanks for the start on that page, and for the additional information - I hope you correct any mistakes and add anything necessary. Regarding the Category:Museums in Nebraska, according to the WP page on Hall of fame, they are, in and of themselves, museums. I cannot find any location information for the Omaha Black Music Hall of Fame; however, I feel their existence is best quantified with the category. - Freechild 03:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I created the page on Preston Love. If you'd like me to specifically work on any other African American players from Omaha, feel free to let me know. - Freechild 03:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

———

Wow! You're distressingly efficient, and I'm most impressed! Thanks for the HoF explanation. For reasons that I don't fully understand myself, I have an interest in L.A. Carnival. I can find information on L.A. himself, but can't find anything significant about the other members. Given that many of them were inducted into the OBMHoF, presumably at least some of them are "significant" people(?) So if you can find out anything about them, that would be good. Also, the L.A. and L.A. Carnival pages are still under construction. If you'd like to work your magic on those pages, I'd be most greatful. Pdfpdf 04:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

———

I'm concerned that both LA and the band will be deleted because of WP:Notability - especially the band. If they only made one single, what makes them worthy of a WP article? Did that single chart? Did the other members of the band do anything remarkable? Just some thoughts... - Freechild 05:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

———

Mmmmm. Well, obviously, I'm biassed, but I would have thought co-writing a grammy winning song, and arranging another song which was a grammy winner would be notable? And as I asked: "Given that many of them were inducted into the OBMHoF, presumably at least some of them are "significant" people(?)". (Or isn't being inducted into the OBMHoF all that notable?) (From South Australia it's rather difficult to judge these things ...) Regarding "L.A. Carnival" and "The Les Smith Soul Band", you probably have a good point. Perhaps merge them back into Lester Abrams? (And thanks for your magic!) Pdfpdf 05:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

———

A note regarding editing: try to avoid using "place holders", like for the next OBMHoF induction. Instead, leave the info out until its found, and maybe make a note to yourself on your userpage to remember to look for it. That way people don't look at the article and automatically think, "AfD"! - Freechild 05:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

———

More good advice. Thanks. Gotta do some other stuff now - be back tomorrow. Pdfpdf 05:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

———

Regarding "L.A. Carnival" and "The Les Smith Soul Band", perhaps merge them back into Lester Abrams? Pdfpdf 00:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

———

Merging the three articles together under Lester is best. I will go ahead and put all the content there now, and create the redirects. Just so you know, this is where he's coming out of. - Freechild 01:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

———

"Merge the 3 articles"? Lester Abrams and L.A. Carnival. Which is the third? Pdfpdf 01:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

———

Thought you had a separate article under the The Les Smith Soul Band. I've cleaned the article up a bit now. - Freechild 01:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

———

FYI, I have run into some resistance from other editors over using bullet points in articles, as it appears less encyclopedia-like. Consequently I've become accustomed to "paragraphizing" everything I write in WP. I tried this a little bit with the L.A. article, but with all the (awesome amount of) details you've added, I don't want to step on your prose. Great job on this article! - Freechild 06:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

———

Hi again,
"FYI, I have run into some resistance from other editors over using bullet points in articles, as it appears less encyclopedia-like." Yes, there are a lot of people with a lot of opinions. After some initial "robust discussion", I subsequently decided to take the path of least resistance!
"Consequently I've become accustomed to "paragraphizing" everything I write in WP. I tried this a little bit with the L.A. article, but with all the (awesome amount of) details you've added, I don't want to step on your prose." That's OK by me. Feel free to do whatever you think will cause us both the the least resistance from others. I've had a bit of difficulty getting it to look reasonable; maybe resorting to bullets wasn't the answer ...
"Great job on this article!" Thanks. I'm surprised how intertwined the lives of these guys are, and how much they've done. I've lost count of the number of albums and artists Rick Chudacoff has been associated with, but, in general, "nobody's ever heard of him". I'm also surprised that after 35 years, L.A. and Les Smith are still working together.
But most of all, I can't seem to find anything about anyone (other than Chudacoff) in the 1980s and 1990s. Do you have any leads? Pdfpdf 08:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Fisher (tr.)

I reverted your linking of "Peter Fisher (tr.)" as we don't have an article about him, it's not a string you'd expect to see linked and I'm not even sure an article should be written about him - are you planning one? Haukur 16:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your linking of "Peter Fisher (tr.)" How were you able to revert so many in so little time? It took me over half an hour to put them in.
as we don't have an article about him Obviously. Why do you think I put the links in?
it's not a string you'd expect to see linked Why not? There are links to the editor of the book. Who are the "you" who would not expect it to be linked? Do you mean: it's not a string I'd expect to see linked, or is there some community or convention on this? Please enlighten me.
I'm not even sure an article should be written about him Why do you say that? (i.e. Please enlighten me.)
are you planning one? Well what do you think? Why do you think I would go to the time and effort of putting the links in? (Of course I was planning one.)
Don't you think it's just a wee bit arrogant to go undoing other people's edits (which are clearly not vandalism) without discussing it with them first, or explaining why you did it? (Rather than just leaving a message afterwards saying "I reverted your link"s.)? Pdfpdf 04:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post Script: as we don't have an article about him Who is/are the "we" that "don't have an article about him"? Pdfpdf 06:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By 'we' I meant Wikipedia. Haukur 11:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, yeah, I should have explained better and I'll add a bit now. You'd linked Peter Fisher (tr.) in multiple articles and then created a redirect from that page to the non-existent Peter Fisher (translator). The bluelinked Peter Fisher (tr.) all over the place made it appear Wikipedia had an article on the subject when it didn't. If he meets WP:BIO and you were planning to write an article on him then please go ahead, I'll help link to the article once you've written it. Haukur 11:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help link to the article once you've written it. - Thank you.
made it appear Wikipedia had an article on the subject when it didn't - Well, yes. But ... the passage of time would have cured that ...
I asked a few questions you haven't answered yet:

How were you able to revert so many in so little time?
it's not a string you'd expect to see linked - Why not?
I'm not even sure an article should be written about him Why do you say that?

Pdfpdf 11:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By using the 'rollback' function. You can have similar functionality by getting certain scripts/tools. I would expect Peter Fisher (translator) to be linked but not Peter Fisher (tr.) because the latter would never be an article title here. I wasn't sure whether he'd meet WP:BIO but I know very little about the fellow. Haukur 11:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I gather it's frowned upon to use redirects? Why? It's a lot quicker and easier to redirect Peter Fisher (tr.) to Peter Fisher (translator) than it is to replace dozens of "Peter Fisher (tr.)" with "Peter Fisher (translator)|Peter Fisher (tr.)". Pdfpdf 13:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Fisher (Medical Researcher)

14:49, 8 June 2007 Natalie Erin (Talk | contribs) deleted "Peter Fisher (Medical Researcher)" (CSD A1: Very short article providing little or no context)

Don't some of you people sleep? I do, and hence I haven't completed the article yet. That's why it is (was) a "Very short article providing little or no context". Not picking on you specifically, but there is a class of Wikipedia editors who would benefit from acquiring some patience and learning some manners. For example, you could have asked me what I was up to before you decided to delete the page. Or failing that, perhaps you could even have put something on my talk page telling me that you'd deleted it, and explaining why?

Looking at your talk page, it seems that I'm the third person this week with a similar complaint. I think I understand why you are doing what you are doing, but it would seem you need to stop making such broad assumptions before you indiscriminately go off deleting other people's work. As Geir implies above, I'm not sure I want to be part of a community that acts without thinking and/or without considering others' points of view. Pdfpdf 10:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post Script: I can't work out how to get back the data you've deleted. Can you either tell me how, or put a copy of it on my user page? Thanks in anticipation. Pdfpdf 11:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedians sleep quite a bit. I for one have just had a great night's sleep after a weekend away from the computer. My apologies for the lateness of my reply; I haven't been online since Friday.

As to the article itself, I suggest reading our criteria for speedy deletion, which lays out the speedy deletion process and the various criteria under which an article can be speedily deleted. As to the article itself, your content was a phone book entry, which is inappropriate on two counts. Firstly, it has no context, as the deletion summary read. Secondly, it doesn't assert the notability or significance of the subject, which is critical. Wikipedia does not use placeholder pages or under construction banners, although some have suggested that the whole site needs an under construction banner. You are welcome to recreate the page when you have some content to create it with, and when you have asserted the subject's notability. I would also recommend you read the essay on what Wikipedia is not and our notability criteria for people. If the subject does not meet the notability criteria the article will be deleted again.

As to the process, I did not simply unilaterally decide to delete the page. Another editor came across the page, thought it was inappropriate, and tagged it for speedy deletion. This puts it in a category that I and many other administrators work on regularly. The CSD process requires no notification or negotiation with other editors; pages can and generally should be deleted without further discussion. As for complaints I have received, I count one this month, which was resolved quite well. Geir and I had a nice conversation (the other half of it is on his/her talk page) and came to a good resolution.

The reason you cannot figure out how to retrieve the content is that you cannot retrieve it. Deleted pages are only visible to administrators (and some aren't even visible to us). However, I can paste the content to a subpage of your userpage if you'd like. Natalie 06:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedians sleep quite a bit. That's not a good start. Your opening sentence implies that I'm not a Wikipedian! Let's keep this civil.

I for one have just had a great night's sleep after a weekend away from the computer. My apologies for the lateness of my reply; I haven't been online since Friday. Glad to hear it. If I wasn't so hooked on Wikipedia, I would have too. No need for apology - not everything in this world has to have happened by yesterday.

As to the article itself, I suggest reading our There you go again. Have you read Jimbo Wales user page recently? By chance, I happened to read it again last night. Amongst other things, he says:

"Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers."

criteria for speedy deletion Yes, I've read it. Have you? Your behaviour suggests otherwise. A few choice extracts:

"The word "speedy" in this context refers to the simple decision-making process, not the length of time since the article was created."

"Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved or reduced to a stub;"

"Note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation."

"Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criteria the page meets; it would also be considerate to notify the original author.

As to the article itself, ... If you re-read my original posting, you'll realise we agree completely on this point. However, although you feel this gives you ample justification for deleting the page without consulting me, this point is not relevant to what I was/am complaining about.

Wikipedia does not use placeholder pages or under construction banners. Mmmmm. Is that a documented policy? (Where?) It seems at odds with the CSD statement: "Note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation."

although some have suggested that the whole site needs an under construction banner. That's better! You were sounding rather humourless before.

You are welcome to recreate the page ... Oh dear. Back to patronising again. Why do you automatically assume I haven't read these things?

As to the process, ... Perhaps. But what about CSD statements: "Note that some Wikipedians create ... " and "it would also be considerate to notify the original author"?

As for complaints I have received, I count one this month Plus me = 2. I just reread the third. First time I read it I thought it was a complaint. Now I'm not sure. OK. Two complaints this month, not three. (But it is only the 12th :-) ).

which was resolved quite well Agreed. s/he sounds like a nice person. But never-the-less, it started with a complaint. When you stop patronising me, this will turn into a nice conversation and will be resolved quite pleasantly too. But never-the-less, it started with a complaint.

The reason you cannot figure out how to retrieve the content is that you cannot retrieve it. Deleted pages are only visible to administrators (and some aren't even visible to us). Ah ha! No wonder I couldn't work out how to do it.

However, I can paste the content to a subpage of your userpage if you'd like. Yes please.

I feel you missed the point of my original posting, so I'll try to restate it more clearly. As an admin, you can (and no doubt will) do just about whatever you want, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. I'm saying that this is a community where some people have disproportionate powers that they using without due regard to others. The community would be a much nicer place if these people were more patient and more polite. Pdfpdf 14:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Why "Peter Fisher redux"? "Peter Fisher (translator)" is an entirely different person from "Peter Fisher (Medical Researcher)". Or are you referring to the nature of the problem? They're not the same - he actually went to the effort of putting something on my talk page, and then apologised for it's brevity. Pdfpdf 14:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's Peter Fisher redux because I thought they were the same person. But that's rather unimportant. To address your specific points (color coding might be helpful here, but ah well).

If you feel like my light-hearted comment about sleeping was insulting, patronising, or uncivil, I fear you're going to have a short sojourn at Wikipedia. I'm not sure how that could be more civil, particularly considering your opening statement to me was "Don't some of you people sleep?" Further, if you feel that using the pronoun "our" shuts you out, I again don't know how to help you. Assuming you are human and editing Wikipedia, you can be part of the "our" - it just refers to Wikipedians, of which you are one. Presumably you have read Wikipedia: Assume good faith, and should know that one should not jump to the worst possible conclusion, which you seem intent on doing.

I would also suggest

To clarify, yet again, how this process works: User:WWGB came across your article, and nominated it for speedy deletion. If they did not inform you, I'm sorry, but the speedy deletion criteria does not require you to be informed of the deletion. If you wish to discuss the notification further, I suggest you take it up with that user. If you wish to change how speedy deletion works, you'll need to take that up at Wikipedia talk: Criteria for speedy deletion. If you wish to change the powers granted to administrators, you'll have to take that up with the devs.

As far as complaints go, I have personally deleted about 450 articles and images since the beginning of the month. I think, in the context of that, two complaints hardly shows the recklessness you think it does. The deleted content will be pasted at your user subpage /Peter Fisher in just a moment. Natalie 15:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I seem to have touched a raw spot. Not my intention, I assure you. (However, having seen some of the filth that has been posted on your userpage, I can now understand why you might have less patience than I would expect. Yuk! Why do you put up with it? I wouldn't. But then again, I guess it must come with the territory. Not very nice territory though ... ) Anyway, back to the topic.

As I said, not my intention to upset you. And as I said before, I feel you missed my point. Your response makes it clear that you've missed my point. So let me try some "fence mending". (As it's now 01:30am here, this may not be as eloquent as I would wish.) And yes, color coding might be helpful :-)

No, I don't feel your comment about sleeping was unpleasant. It was the implication that I'm not a Wikipedian that I was reacting to. Or to be more precise, over-reacting to. Given your explanation, I unreservedly withdraw those statements and acknowledge your "Assume good faith" comments.

(Some of your reply seems to have dis-appeared. I'm referring to the sentence that starts "I would also suggest", but goes no further.)

I thought I'd made it clear that I understood the process. That's why I was quoting bits of it back to you. If it's not clear, then let me clearly state: "I understand the process." No, you don't need to clarify (yet again). No, it doesn't require that I be notified. No, I don't wish to discuss it further. No, I don't wish to change how the policy says it should work. No, I don't want to change the powers granted to administrators. Yes, I understand the policy, and process, and product.

As far as complaints go, didn't you notice the smiley face on my comment? I agree that 2 out of 450 is a long, long way from "reckless" (which, by the way, is not what I was accusing you of.)

And thank you for putting the stuff on a user subpage.

I hesitate to try to communicate my point again, but here goes anyway. The point I'm trying to communicate is: "Wikipedia would be a nicer place if people were more patient and more polite."

However, after having seen the sort of filth that gets put on your user page, I would imagine that "patient" and "polite" seem quite low on your list of what would make Wikipedia a nicer place. You have my sympathy. I wouldn't want to pay the price that you seem to be required to pay to continue your job as an administrator. I will stop bothering you and let you get back to more serious matters. Pdfpdf 16:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand what you're trying to say. I wonder, though, that since you seem quite familiar with our processes and policies, why create an inappropriate page? Before conversing with you, I assumed you were a new user as you created a telephone directory entry. So my apologies for pointing you to various policies.

It is true that Wikipedia can seem somewhat harsh, which is, IMHO, the assume good faith rule exists. One must believe until proved otherwise that what other people are doing is for the good of the encyclopedia. That doesn't always mean letting their edits stand, even if they were in completely good faith, but it does mean having conversations such as this one, giving people appropriate warnings when necessary, and pointing people toward policy pages if you're not sure they know the policy. That, I think, is how we deal with these sorts of issues. Natalie 08:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand what you're trying to say. - Good.

I wonder, though, that since you seem quite familiar with our processes and policies, why create an inappropriate page? - I'm sorry, but I can't work out if that is a rhetorical question, or if it is a request for me to explain. If it is a request for me to explain, I'd be happy to.

So my apologies for pointing you to various policies. - Thank you.

It is true ... . - I agree. That is exactly what I was trying to communicate to you. I was also trying to communicate to you that the behaviour from you that I was observing did not seem (to me) to be consistent with this. I'm not sure what it is that you thought I was trying to communicate, (clearly you were quite upset by it), but it no longer matters - you now appear to understand my intent, and I believe that I now understand your intent. I think that this new situation is quite an improvement on what was happening before. Pdfpdf 11:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC) (P.S. Do you have a "watch" on this page, or do I need to post on your page too?)[reply]

I do not have a watch on this page (I find that watchlisting other people's talk pages clogs up my list with unrelated conversations. But when I am having a conversation on another page I periodically check back for more conversation. My question is somewhat rhetorical and somewhat practical. I am somewhat curious about why you created that particular page. Natalie 06:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm tired. This won't be eloquent. If you find it terse, please exercise patience and goodwill - any terseness is not intentional, just a side effect.

My question is somewhat rhetorical and somewhat practical. I am somewhat curious about why you created that particular page. - I'll take that to mean: "Yes, please explain." If I've mis-understood you, sorry - just ignore the rest of this.

I'll be brief. If I'm being too brief and unclear, please ask me to expand. Don't assume the worst and go off on a tangent. So here goes:

I was working on Peter Fisher (translator), and came across Peter Fisher (Medical Researcher). More particularly, I came across the Program for Evaluating Complementary Medicine page, which I found intriguing, and which quoted an Oxford University published paper by Peter Fisher (Medical Researcher). I wanted to know more about this topic, and more about this person. As I gathered more facts, I improved the the topic page, and eventually had the start for a bio page, so I started. But it was late, and I was tired, so I went to bed.

Next day I went to continue, and found the page deleted. No warning, no discussion, and only minimal indication of why. Why? Because it didn't say anything (yet). Well of course it didn't; I'd barely started.

I could go on explaining my reaction and point of view, but I've already done that, and you've already interpreted what I said in a way that caused you to find it offensive. I don't think there is much point in doing it again. Do you? (However, I'm happy to do so if you wish.)

However, I really would like you to reread those bits of the CSD policy I quoted you. (I've reproduced them below.) The process you and your colleague followed may match the letter of the CSD law/policy, but to me on the receiving end, it certainly didn't seem to follow the spirit of those bits of the policy I quoted to you.

And no, I don't want to debate process or your actions. What I want is for you to consider the "spirit" of the policy, and how you and your colleague's actions did or did not match that "spirit". And no, I don't want to know the results of your consideration. I just want you to know the results of your consideration.

If what I've said is not clear, please ask. For clarity, these are the bits of the criteria for speedy deletion policy I'm refering to:

"The word "speedy" in this context refers to the simple decision-making process, not the length of time since the article was created."

"Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved or reduced to a stub;"

"Note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation."

"it would also be considerate to notify the original author."

I think we've exhausted the topic. What do you think? Pdfpdf 13:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly, although I would argue that the largest spirit of the CSD policy is to get inappropriate pages off Wikipedia as soon as possible. I should also point out that the bit about creating pages in multiple saves still generally means within a few minutes. No, you will not find that written down anywhere that I'm aware of, but the general consensus is that if a page has not been improved in a few hours, it will be deleted. Natalie 13:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmm. I would argue that the over-riding aim is to produce a high quality encyclopedia, and I guess we disagree on what that actually means. I think you argue that it means, "get rid of the rubbish as soon as possible". I argue, "give people time to produce quality." Pdfpdf 13:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tomayto, tomahto, I suppose. Natalie 15:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G'day

Dear Sala Skan

I've just read your user page. I'm a bit pedantic about language usage too, and agree with the sentiments expressed by userboxes en-gb-5, totootwo, theretheir, youryou're, its2, apostrophe and Apostrophe Abuse. (I also find the boxes amusing, too.)
My current pet peeve is the misuse of I/myself/me, particularly the misuse of "myself". Do you know where I can find a userbox for this?
Regarding en-gb-5, I don't believe there is such a thing as "American English". In my (highly biassed and subjective) opinion, the British speak English, and the Americans speak American. (Well, almost. I don't really want to offend the Canadians, the Mexicans and the residents of South America. But what else can you call the language spoken by the residents of the United States of America? {USAian? I don't think so. And you can't call it USian - that would offend the residents of the United States of Mexico.)) (By the way, in case it isn't bleedingly obvious to other readers, the previous outrageous statement is an attempt at humour - spelt with a "u".) So, Salaskan, what is your belief about the "Australian" language?
(And yes, you're right, "This user spends WAY too much time on Wikipedia" and REALLY needs to get a life! I've just got to do one more edit first ... ) Keep up the good work. Regards, Pdfpdf 07:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! First of all, I totally agree that "English" technically means "from England", and that thus English English is the real form of English, and American shouldn't be called English in the first place. Also, the "residents of the USA" ought to find a word to describe themselves apart from "American", as America is the entire landmass of North and South-America.

The Australians are very puristic when it comes to repelling Americanisms, fortunately. And I think their accent sounds pretty funny

.

And which cases of misuse of "myself" are you talking about in particular? I couldn't find a userbox for this, perhaps copy an existing userbox and change the text to a nice sentence which represents the difference between those three words. For an (insanely long) list, see Wikipedia:Userboxes/Grammar. Regards, Sala Skan 11:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "myself": In particular, in letters/emails from salesmen that start with "Good morning" and finish with "do not hesitate to contact myself or my colleague". (Shudder.)
And yes, the length of the list is truly impressive! I guess I'll have to do it myself. Thanks for the link.
Regarding the "residents of the USA": Good idea! Yes, they ought to find a word to describe themselves (apart from "American"). Hand the problem back to them. (Note, however, that they have a reputation for being generally unaware of anything outside their borders that doesn't involve large quantities of oil.)
Regards, Pdfpdf 15:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I like your multicoloured signature. (I must get around to sprucing up mine.)
Is there a particular significance to the choice of red-and-gold?

Haha, I can understand that! Sometimes I'm just so puristic when it comes to language...

For the template, I created one, and put it on your user page (just remove it if you don't like it). Sorry for the ridiculously stupid sentence, but I couldn't come up with anything better. Any changes are welcome!

By the way, that's completely true, they probably won't ever notice it. So let's just call them "extremists" from now on, suits them well.

About my sig, not really, I was just bored with the standard signature and these colours stood out nicely. Sala Skan 15:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some good laughs: The US World Domination Tour - Americans are not stupid! - I Am An Atheist - Bush Almighty! (I Hate Republicans) - The Idiot Son of an A**hole Sala Skan 15:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That was a really nice gesture, and is most appreciated. It's 01:30am here; I'll post a proper response tomorrow. Tot ziens. (Or is it "Tot zeins"? I can't remember!) Pdfpdf 16:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Tot ziens" is perfect. Sala Skan 16:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about "USAsians", or perhaps "USAzians"? Pdfpdf 06:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that I like "extremists", but it's hardly unique or exclusive. (After all, there are some who might consider us to be extremists ... ) Pdfpdf 06:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, but you might insult the Asians with that. USA**holes may be a bit too explicit... hmm.... This is difficult! Sala Skan 16:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would have to be A** (not A***). And I'm afraid you're right, it probably is too explicit. (And yes, even USAzians might insult the Asians - and as there are a quite a lot of them, it's probably not a good idea to insult them.) Pdfpdf 04:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I initially rejected USAian because I thought it unpronouncable. However: "you-say-un" is a possibility ... Pdfpdf 09:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look Salaskan, this just isn't good enough. You've been around for three whole minutes and you've made answering other people's serious comments a higher priority than chewing-the-fat (no, strike that, too USAian) a higher prioity than engaging in facetious debate with me!! I'm mortally offended and don't know if I'll ever recover. Pdfpdf 11:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely apologise for hurting you so badly. Anyway, USAian doesn't sound too bad. By the way, visited any of those links yet? Sala Skan 11:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I love the "Anyway"). Yes, I have visited the links:

The US World Domination Tour is my favourite.
I first saw Americans are not stupid! several years ago. It ages well!
I Am An Atheist - Clever. Gets second prize.
The "bushflash" ones don't seem to be in the same class as the first three.

I received a Bush email today that I liked: Post Turtle
Somewhere I've go a 30 second movie that still makes me laugh. What's the best way to get it to you?
BTW: Which "buurt" of which "stad" do you live in? Pdfpdf 12:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. I'll mail you with the answer, if you could enable that option in your preferences. Sala Skan 12:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I already have. (I hope I've done it correctly!) Pdfpdf 13:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No e-mail address - This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.

Sala Skan 13:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bother. Ah ha! The "Enable e-mail from other users" wasn't set.
It is now. Could you try again please? Pdfpdf 13:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wynonie Harris (Wikitoddia)

Dear Wikitoddia,

Wow! You've been busy on Wynonie Harris. Good work. Well done.

And I like the little bits and pieces you've added - you're obviously familiar with the subject matter.

You added as well as half-brothers to the statement about Harris & Love. Interesting! Did they have a common mother (Mallie) or common father (Blue Jay)? Or was the common "father" Luther Harris? Do you have a reference you can add to the article?

Cheers, Pdfpdf 17:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On review, the statement about Love and Harris was wrong. I went back and looked and I was confused by something....but yeah....the guy has an amazing voice and I just like to keep some accurate records about figures who did something good in the world. I see you're in Australia...I'm originally English, live in the States, have two cousins down near Melbourne. Well, one for sure, the other I've never met, but I know he lives down in NSW somewhere. Hopefully I'll be able to visit some time. 17:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wynonie Harris (Bentonia School)

Dear Bentonia School,

Do you still have an interest in Wynonie Harris? There has been a lot of work done on that page recently. (Only some of it by me). You might like to have a look. Do you have any (more) references you can contribute? Pdfpdf 22:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Things look good in the article. Thanks for putting more stuff in. If anything comes to mind, I'll contact you and add it. Be well. --Bentonia School 05:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like it. A lot of the work was done by Wikitoddia (Talk). I look forward to hearing from you. Pdfpdf 11:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defence Establishment Fairbairn (203.17.154.218)

Dear 203.17.154.218,

I would be greatful if you could explain your latest set of edits to Defence Establishment Fairbairn. They look a bit like vandalism. Even taken in the best possible light, they contain errors.

Canberra International Airport is a place, not an entity. Places don't own things. It's entities that own things. "Canberra International Airport" do not own the lease; the lease is owned by "Canberra International Airport Pty Ltd".

Similarly, "Canberra International Airport" do not manage or control the Canberra International Airport. It is "Capital Airport Group Pty Ltd" that manage and control the Canberra International Airport.

Similarly, "Canberra International Airport" did not release the "Fairbairn" prospectus. The prospectus was jointly released by Canberra International Airport Pty Ltd and Capital Airport Group Pty Ltd.

Your edit now says "embarked on an ambitious building program in Fairbairn". I'm not aware of any place officially named "Fairbairn". Is there such a place? If so, where is it, and when was it officially named?

You don't seem to like:

"Many of these new buildings have already been leased to the (Australian) Department of Defence (and others), and some are already occupied. By the end of 2007 the new buildings will be completed and occupied."

You've changed that twice now. Can you explain what it is that you don't like about it, and why you keep changing it?

And you have you twice removed the link: National Trust concerns (PDF). Can you explain why you deleted it?

Awaiting, with interest, the receipt of your reply. Pdfpdf 04:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defence Establishment Fairbairn (Xezbeth)

Dear Xezbeth,

Although I'm glad that somebody other than me has reverted the edits to Defence Establishment Fairbairn performed by 203.17.154.218 (Thank you!), I fear that doing this will simply start an edit war. Independent of what you and I personally think about this annoying creature, "good faith" suggests that this person deserves an explanation for why you reverted their edits. (And yes, I'm guilty of the same "crime", but at least I put "introduces errors in fact" on the edit summary ... ) Also, this time I have posted a "please explain" in the talk pages of 203.17.154.218 and Defence Establishment Fairbairn before reverting. Note also that this time this person has paid attention to SOME of the changes I made; they didn't undo ALL of my contributions (just most of them!)

OK! That fulfills my "moral obligation". Now I can get onto what I really want to ask you!

So far I've had no response to my questions on the Defence Establishment Fairbairn talk page, and no-one other than me (and 203.17.154.218!) has been editing the page itself since November 2006. It's just been Pdfpdf vs 203.17.154.218

So I'm glad to have your second opinion (actually, it's a third opinion, isn't it?) and some support! So, may I ask:

What lead you to spot 203.17.154.218's changes?

What lead you to decide to revert them?

Do you have an interest/involvement in the subject?

Are you an admin?

(Neither your user page nor your talk page tell me anything about You - a lot about what you do and what you've done, but nothing about you.)

Thank you for supporting my opinion (even if you didn't realise that was what you were doing!) Pdfpdf 12:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my revert was just a knee-jerk reaction to the anon's vandalism on another page. I only had a quick glance at his other edits and saw you had reverted before and he didn't seem to be explaining his changes. —Xezbeth 14:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Very similar to my reaction first time. Unfortunately, this person doesn't respond to subtle hints. (Or requests, or blatent threats either, for that matter!) What do you think is the best way forward? (Are you an admin?) Pdfpdf 14:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am, and I will block the IP if it persists. There does however seem to be more than one user of the IP so its best to leave blocking it until absolutely necessary. —Xezbeth 14:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll "ping" you if I end up in an edit war. Bye. Pdfpdf 05:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confused (AMbot edit trail)

I'm newish to wikipedia, so some stuff that's obvious to people that have been around for a while is, to me, quite confusing.

Example:
On the history page of User:AndreaPersephone, there's a line:

11:04, 13 June 2007 AMbot (Talk | contribs) m (8,500 bytes) (remove categorization per CSD and DRV)

(So CSD is Criteria for speedy deletion, and DRV is Deletion Review. OK. So far, so good.) But:

Nothing has been posted on the user's talk page.
There's no reference anywhere to which of the CSD applies.
There's no reference anywhere to the deletion review.

So what's going on? And why? I'm completely confused. Pdfpdf 12:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll try to explain as best I can, and if I miss any points, please let me know and I'll try to refocus as needed. You are obviously referring to this edit, where Category:Pro-Choice Wikipedians was removed. If you look in the deletion log you will see that the category was deleted using the speedy deletion criteria. Some persons objected to its deletion, which was then discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 4 in the section titled "Category:Wikipedians by political issue and its subcategories". The deletion of the categories was endorsed at the deletion review, which means that there is consensus for the category to no longer exist. The bot isn't making any judgments about the category or its deletion, it is just doing the clean up to remove pages from the category, since there is no point in having a page be a member of a category which doesn't exist. I hope that clears up your confusion, but please let me know if it doesn't and I'll try again. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Your explanation is remarkably clear and comprehensive. Unfortunately, there are a few steps I don't quite follow and probably need you to fill in some detail for me. I'm afraid I need to get to bed now; I'll get back to you in the next couple of days. Many thanks for such a clear explanation. Pdfpdf 13:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome and thank you for the compliment. Feel free to come back here and continue this thread anytime. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: HermesBot

The Bot is moving the category from the article to the article's talk page. Its some sort of maintenance work. If you look at the CFD, some editors decided it should be on the talk page instead of the article page, so my bot is moving the category Place of birth missing from the article page to the article talk page. Hope that clears up any confusion. ~ Wiki hermit _(HermesBot) 14:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi Waites

Hi Robotje,

21:49, 20 February 2007 Robotje (Talk | contribs) (image)
18:35, 13 June 2007 Howcheng (Talk | contribs) m (1,930 bytes) ("image for deletion")

If that's a bit too much shorthand:
On 20 Feb you put a picture of Luigi on the Luigi Waites page.
In case you hadn't noticed, on 13 June Howcheng marked it as "image for deletion".
i.e. "The image above is proposed for deletion. See "images and media for deletion" to help reach a consensus on what to do."

Please visit the Luigi Waites and image-for-deletion pages and see if you can satisfy Howcheng's requirements, and thus stop the deletion process.

Thanks, Pdfpdf 01:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pdfpdf,

In February I noticed the only image was removed from the article about Luigi Waites while another image was available on Commons. So I decided to add that one to the article. It now turns out the license choosen by the uploader using the PD-USGov template could be incorrect. I'm not the uploader of the image on Commons and I'm not a specialist on allowed licenses there so it is hard for me to tell if the current license is correctly applied or not. The uploader has already been notified on his talk-page here (see User talk:Chris 73) so let's hope he can handle this. - Best regards, Robotje 04:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. I guess it's out of our hands. Let's hope "Chris73" does "the right thing" and is successful. Pdfpdf 12:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. - Robotje 05:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flippant observation

Gosh, and I've forgotten what I've learned already. Isn't that ironic? --CA387 06:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PDF (disambiguation)

08:16, 21 June 2007 JediLofty (Talk | contribs) (1,381 bytes) (Undid revision 139585653 by Pdfpdf (talk)rv unneccesary edit)
Why is this an "unneccesary (sic) edit"?
Is this simply your opinion, or do you have something concrete to back this statement up? If so, please quote it.
You have been contributing since September 2006, so you should be well aware that the customary process is to discuss things on the talk page before undoing other people's edits. (You may have noticed that this is what I did. If you didn't notice, please go and read it. If you disagree with it, please add your comments there.)
As you should be well aware, your behaviour is the sort of thing that starts edit wars.

Probability density function and Probability distribution function are two separate names for the same thing. For your benefit, I will copy and paste what I said on the talk page: Probability density function and Probability distribution function point to the same page. (Which they should.) Having them on separate lines implies that they are two different things. (Which they are not.)
However, not having them both as blue links implies that one is subordinate to the other. (Which they are not.)
It was originally

which I didn't like because it seemed to imply they were different, so I changed it to

Probability density function (also known as a Probability distribution function)

You didn't like this because, as stated in WP:DISAMBIG (without a leading left parenthesis, which makes it a red link) it gave more than one link per line. Fair enough. So, you changed it to

Probability density function (also known as a Probability distribution function)

As one is not subordinate to the other, I tried to fit in with you and WP:DISAMBIG by changing it to

Probability density function (also known as a Probability distribution function)
Probability distribution function (also known as a Probability density function)

Without consultation, discussion or explanation, you reverted it.

I'm not happy with this. I'm prepared to go back to

rather than have what you are proposing. (And you know I don't particularly like the original.)

Please explain what will keep you happy and address my concerns. Pdfpdf 11:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-----

I apologise if I caused offence (either in my edit, or my inadvertant misspelling of unnecessary in my edit).

When I first reorganised the page (back at the beginning of May) I didn't realise that Probability density function and Probability distribution function were different names for the same thing, otherwise I'd have made the change that I did before.

Having

Probability density function (also known as a Probability distribution function)

is against the style guidelines in WP:DISAMBIG (as you are aware), as there should only be one link per line. This is why I removed the second link.

In my opinion

Probability density function (also known as a Probability distribution function)

is correct, as the Probability distribution function article is merely a redirect to Probability density function. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 12:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-----

No, you didn't cause me offence (but thanks for apologising).
And of course, in your opinion, you are correct. (In my opinion, you are incorrect. That's what this correspondence is about, isn't it?)

You seem to have missed my point, and you haven't answered my questions, or explained anything (that wasn't obvious).

I'll try again.
The Probability distribution function article is not merely a redirect to Probability density function.
They are two separate names for the same thing, (so it makes logical sense to have just one article pointed to by both of them), but that doesn't mean that one is subordinate to or less important than the other.
Not having them both as blue links implies that one is subordinate to the other. (Which they are not.)

So, please explain what will keep you happy, and will address my concerns.

As I said, I'm prepared to go back to

rather than have what you have proposed, even though neither of us are happy with that. Pdfpdf 13:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd been fairly clear in my explanation. I'll try one more time then drop the subject.

You said that "The Probability distribution function article is not merely a redirect to Probability density function." when it blatantly is. If one clicks the Probability distribution function link, one is taken to the Probability density function article (as shown by the text (Redirected from Probability distribution function) at the top). I was of the understanding that one shouldn't link to pages that are merely redirects. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. You're not even trying.
Yes, you had been very clear. I said that. I also said you seem to have missed my point. And, you seem to continue to avoid it.
Where do you get "when it blatantly is" from?
To use your words: "I thought I'd been fairly clear in my explanation." Without wanting to get nasty, I'm forced to wonder what isn't clear, and what you don't understand.
Yes, functionaly, what you describe is indeed the the case. I'm not disputing that. As I said, I agree with the logic you are applying.
But it is completely irrelevant to the point I'm trying to communicate to you. I could repeat myself, but I don't see a lot of point. If you didn't read and think about what I said the first two times, you are unlikely to change your behaviour if I copy it a third time. If you did read and think about it, I don't understand your response.
And at no time have you made any attempt to respond to my question: please explain what will keep you happy, and will address my concerns.

And if you do chose to ignore me and my requests, we will end up in an edit war, and it will be of your making, not mine. I'm being reasonable and trying to rationally discuss this with you. It is you who is sticking to your position and ignoring my requests for explanation and clarification. Pdfpdf 14:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-----

This is getting too complicated and unnecessarily unpleasant.
Lets just drop all the baggage, and you answer the question: What will keep you happy, and will address my concerns?
OK? Pdfpdf 14:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going any further with this discussion as I really don't appreciate the hostility you're showing me when all I'm trying to do is follow the Wikipedia style guidelines. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what's hostile about me asking you to answer the question: What will keep you happy, and will address my concerns? Pdfpdf 15:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what concerns you have. Here are the facts as I see them

1. Probability density function is an article on Wikipedia

2. Probability distribution function is not an article, it is a redirect to the above mentioned article.

3. Disambiguation pages should have ONE linked article per line.

4. Links to disambiguation pages are to be avoided.

In other words, Probability distribution function should not be a link, because it points to a disambiguation page.

I really don't know what more I can say on this, which is why I didn't want to continue the conversation. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So you have answered the "What will keep you happy?" bit.
And to the "and will address my concerns?" bit, you have answered: I don't understand what concerns you have.

This seems to be the crux of the communication problem we are having.

As I've acknowledged, you have explained yourself quite clearly several times. What you say is internally consistent and internally logical, and within that framework addresses Wikipedia guidelines. But it bears no relationship to what I'm trying to communicate to you.

What you describe (accurately) is the structure of the information on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia currently represents the information.
However, this is not the only way that the information could have been represented.
For example: The article could have been titled "Probability distribution function", and "Probability density function" could have been the redirect link.
Another option is that the article could have had some other title, and both "Probability distribution function" and "Probability density function" could have been redirects.
No doubt there are other options too.

What I'm trying to communicate is that, independent of how Wikipedia mechanically does the job of representing the information, "Probability distribution function", and "Probability density function" are two three-word-names which both happen to descibe the same thing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (or encyclopaedia if you prefer - I do). What it "says" should represent reality, not represent how Wikipedia's internal representation of reality happens to be constructed. You have accurately described the reality of how Wikipedia has internally represented the information. This is not necessaily the same as the reality that there are two three-word-names which both happen to descibe the same thing.

Is this making any sense? Before I go any further, please ask me to clarify anything that's not clear to you.

(It's 2am here. If you don't mind, I won't reply for another 6-8 hours.) Pdfpdf 16:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-----

As you have not responded, I assume you do not disagree with what I've said so far.

Continuing: So, the reality can be independent of how Wikipedia happens to represent the reality. In this case, the reality is that they are two independent three-word-names which both happen to descibe the same thing. One name is commonly used by one group of mathematicians. The other is commonly used by a different group. Neither is "wrong". Neither is "right". That's just the way it is.

To imply that one is subordinate to or inferior to the other (just because it happens to be internally represented on Wikipedia that way) is, (in terms of the encyclopaedia function (rather than in terms of the style guide)), inaccurate.

Do you now understand my concern?

If so: What will keep you happy, and will address my concerns?

If not, please indicate what you don't understand.

Note: I'm not asking you to agree with my point of view. I'm asking: What will keep you happy, and will address my concerns?

In summary:
I made my initial edit, and explained why on the talk page.
You pointed out that this did not fit Wikipedia style guidelines.
So I changed it to a format that did fit Wikipedia style guidelines.
You didn't like that format either.
Rather than guessing what might satisfy your requirements, I asked: What will keep you happy, and will address my concerns?
You eventually answered: "I don't understand what concerns you have."
I have attempted to explain my concerns, and again ask: What will keep you happy, and will address my concerns?
Pdfpdf 01:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comments (apologies for not being at my PC 24/7). Is this really what this is all about - the fact that both phrases are equally valid? Maybe this is why I didn't understand - without wishing to cause offence; to my mind that is a triviality, which is why I didn't focus on it. I really don't know how one can address that while keeping within the bounds of the Wikipedia style guidelines, so I'll leave it to you. Life is too short for this kind of thing. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 08:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really what this is all about - Yes. That's why I typed variations of the same statements four times.
without wishing to cause offence; to my mind that is a triviality - "without wishing to cause offence", making that statement shows you have no understanding of the subject matter. Do you think it wise that somebody with no understanding of the subject matter should be making edits to the subject matter? Further, do you think it wise that somebody with no understanding of the subject matter should be reverting the edits of somebody who has considerable knowledge and understanding of the subject matter?
I really don't know how one can address that ... so I'll leave it to you. - Thank you. Pdfpdf 09:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post Script: Several times in our discussion you have said, "In my opinion", but WP:DISAMBIG was the only reference you quoted to support your opinion. Wikipedia is about facts, not opinions (unless the opinions are supported by facts). Also during the course of our discussion I asked you several questions. It was not until the last paragraph of the discussion that you answered any of them, and then you only answered one of them. Pdfpdf 09:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true that I don't understand the subject matter, what I DO understand is the Wikipedia style guidelines. The page now has two links to the same page, which doesn't follow the style guidelines at all.

As for Probability distribution function not being subordinate to Probability density function, might I suggest you look at Probability distribution function and count the number of times the phrase Probability distribution function occurs (other than in the Redirected from... heading). Can you see why I came to the conclusion that I did? -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 10:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page now has two links to the same page, which doesn't follow the style guidelines at all. - You are completely correct.
This is why I have asked, many times, "What will keep you happy, and will address my concerns?".
You said: I really don't know how one can address that ... so I'll leave it to you.
In the absence of any help from you in coming up with a solution, and with what I interpreted to be your permission (i.e. "so I'll leave it to you") I arbitrarily chose the solution that you seemed to dislike least.
(You will notice that I don't think much of this solution - it is the original situation that I didn't like in the first place, but as I said, you seemed to dislike it least.)

I have had several tries to come up with something acceptable to you, but without success. If you don't like what I've tried, I think it's now your turn to have a go and come up with something. (And here comes a question that I'd like an answer to.) What do you think?

might I suggest - Certainly. But what you've done can hardly be classed as scientific investigation, or even statistical analysis. Your conclusion is based on a sample of size one, in a field that is not your area of expertise. Yes, I can see how you came to the conclusion that you did, but your methodology is not robust. Consequently, you have come to an unreliable conclusion.

I would like to go on and further develop my explanation, but as you so concisely stated (and with which I agree): "Life is too short".

So let's try to "wrap this up". What solution can we come up with that will keep us both happy? I await your suggestion(s). Pdfpdf 11:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a solution that will keep us both happy. All I did was edit the page to maintain the style guidelines of Wikipedia, which is a general-purpose encyclopedia, not a physics or maths textbook. I fail to see why

Probability density function (also known as a Probability distribution function)

causes you such distress, but it obviously does.

I can't be bothered arguing over such a trivial matter, so I leave you to come up with a solution that follows the style guidelines by having ONE linked article per line and by NOT linking to a redirect page. I've already given my solution but that obviously wasn't good enough. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 12:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find your response very helpful.
All I did was edit the page to maintain the style guidelines - No, that isn't all you did. Yes, you did edit the page to maintain the style guidelines, but your edit introduced an inaccuracy.

Being a general-purpose encyclopaedia does not mean that this is a licence to be inaccurate. Wikipedias style guides are not an excuse to be inaccurate - they are guides on how accurate information should be presented in Wikipedia. You might be presenting data in a manner that is consistent with the style guide, but you are not presenting accurate information. Changing accurate information into inaccurate data so that the text can fit in with the style is not consistent with the style guide, or any other of Wikipedias principles, policies, procedures, etc.

Nevertheless, I have had another go at what I hope is acceptable to you.

And it is very rude to classify as trivial something of which you have no knowledge, no understanding and perhaps no interest.
And if you "can't be bothered arguing" over it, why do you continue to argue over it? Pdfpdf 13:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing another more-than-one-link-per-line situation

13:13, 21 June 2007 JediLofty (Talk | contribs) (1,381 bytes) (Fixing another more-than-one-link-per-line situation!)

Yes, you are applying the letter of the law here.

But don't you think, perhaps, that you might be getting a little bit obsessive? If you really wanted to, you could spend your life doing this. Do you really want to spend your life doing this? (Or failing that, spend your leisure time doing this?)

I'm sure you could find something more interesting, enjoyable and useful to do. What do you think? Pdfpdf 13:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music in Omaha

Hi Pdfpdf. Since you've done quite a bit of work on articles relevant to Omaha's music scene, you might be interested in Music in Omaha. I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at it and add to it if you see fit. I would dread the thought that I missed adding anything. – Freechild (BoomCha) 15:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Freechild! Good to hear from you, and thanks for the news. You put your message in one of my archives, and I only just noticed it - so sorry for the delayed reply.

I will take great pleasure in "taking a look at it". (BTW: I'm paying attention to your request not to split the conversation, which, btw, I think is a good idea - I'll probably steal a copy of your text!). And thanks for the licence to "fiddle with it". If I make any changes that you don't like, don't hesitate to revert them - I won't be offended. (I might be puzzled! But I won't be offended.)

I would dread the thought that I missed adding anything. - Sorry to disillusion you, but even before I look I can just about guarantee that you've missed something! ;-) (I assume you've heard of Murphy's Law?)

I've had a quick look, and my first reaction was "Having a quick look is inadequate. I need to devote some time to this". My second reaction was "Surf Music in Omaha?????". It seems the old adage "You learn something new every day" continues to be true!

Regards, Pdfpdf 09:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The OBMHoF web site maintenance seems to have been completed, and the web site seems be working.

-----

OK! I've started! This is harder than I expected!!

I've made some changes, and put some comments/questions at User talk:Pdfpdf/Music in Omaha

Pdfpdf 11:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for everything you've done. I really appreciate the notes you wrote up, and I'm still working from them... quick question: If a person doesn't write "1940 to 1961", what do they write? – Freechild (BoomCha) 14:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! Generally one would indeed write "1940 to 1961", (and one would mean "from 1940 to 1961 inclusive"). However, it can be ambiguous. The only way to be certain is to use the whole phrase, which, of course, nobody does. (Unless it's really important to be absolutely clear.) (By-the-way: I think what I've just written is a very unsatisfactory answer, even if it is accurate.) So, the choice is yours! Either X thru Y, which is unambiguous but not used outside USA, or X to Y, which is generally quite clear, but not always. (I bet you'll never ask me another question!) Pdfpdf 08:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pdfpdf, since you've done a ton of work on topics I'm interested in, consider me a resource for you: If you ever want assistance with an article like Famecity let me know. I specialize in finding the notability of obscure - but notable - places, people and companies. Besides, I like to help. – Freechild (BoomCha) 14:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind of you. Thank you. Pdfpdf 08:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about FameCity, though: I'm finding what appears to be two separate companies with this name. Which is the one you are interested in: The one in Canada, referenced here, or the one in the UK started by the brothers from The Wades? Let me know... – Freechild (BoomCha) 16:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I looked at the history of The Wades and found you. Alright, that answers that question... although it still makes me wonder about the FameCity Entertainment cited here. Oh well. About FameCity, I cannot find any evidence of any activity after 2000, or anything beyond The Wades' last album. You? Oh, and I think its pathetic the way they speedy deleted your article. – Freechild (BoomCha) 16:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, UK. Yes, because of The Wades. Yes, the Canadian reference is enticing! Also, there are two German sites - no, that's too grand - two German pages with not much on them and next-to-nothing behind them: www.famecity.de and www.famecity-entertainment.com - not highly useful. And Yes, I'm far from impressed with the way the speedy delete jugernaut, once started, seems impossible to stop. Seeing that The Wades seemed to be the only users of Famecity Entertainment, and both Famecity and The Wades seem to be inactive, maybe the answer is to put anything about Famecity on The Wades page? Unless we can find something more notable, I'd say that, by itself, Famecity probably fails the notability test? Your thoughts? Cheers, Pdfpdf 08:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Famecity definitely fails notability... at best it should be a short note on The Wades. Take care. – Freechild (BoomCha) 12:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:User talk:JediLofty

Extract from (User talk:JediLofty)'s history:

10:16, 22 June 2007 Anonymous Dissident (Talk | contribs) m (979 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Anonymous Dissident to last revision by JediLofty. using TW)
10:16, 22 June 2007 Anonymous Dissident (Talk | contribs) m (2,264 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by JediLofty identified as vandalism to last revision by Pdfpdf. using TW)
10:16, 22 June 2007 JediLofty (Talk | contribs) (979 bytes) (→Trivia?)
09:56, 22 June 2007 Pdfpdf (Talk | contribs) (2,264 bytes) (→Trivia?)

I don't really understand what's going on here. Can you fill in the gaps please?

09:56 - Pdfpdf placed some information on Lofty's talk page.
10:16a - Lofty removed it.
10:16b - Twinkle identified Lofty's action as vandalism, and reverted it. (Interesting. Can one vandalise one's own page?) How was TW able to detect and act so quickly after the event?)
10:16c - Twinkle reverted its own reversion. Why? Why didn't it just not make the first reversion?

Thanks. Pdfpdf 12:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question: I am not sure of the limits of Twinkles capabilities. No-one is. It has enexplored depths that just grow deeper when more updates and add-ons are applied. I'm sorry, but I only got Twinkle perhaps 4 days ago, so I couldn't really tell yo0u what happened with this user's talk page. Maybe you should post it on Twinkle's actual discussion. Kind regards, -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk

Famecity

Famecity marked for speedy deletion

A tag has been placed on Famecity, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, 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 assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Eliz81 11:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: famecity deletion

Hi there, and thanks for your messages. Yes it is pretty amazing how quickly speedy deletion works sometimes, isn't it! At least it can live up to its name. The thing to do in this case would be to recreate the article from scratch (there is a cautionary warning on the page about re-creation, but just go here anyway... that's more for vandals than anything else). Make sure this time it satisfies the guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia, especially 1. notability from secondary sources 2. not an ad 3. internal wikilinks 4. external links, perhaps even a note on the talk page about the improvements since last time, and you should be all set. hope this helps, and thanks for your contributions! Eliz81 17:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Famecity restore

Hi there; I have restored this article to the encyclopedia. It is undoubtedly deserving of speedy deletion as it stands - I have added a {{hangon}} tag in case you do not find it in time. But it will go again unless improved fairly quickly.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 17:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help Desk

I have added a response to your message on the help desk. [7]Wikihobby ҈ ^►^talk

trying to put "hangon" onto a page nominated for speedy deletion

One person nominated a page I'd created for deletion. I read the message and clicked on the blue link to the page to put "hangon" on the page. I was greeted by "this page does not exist". I looked at the deletion log. The page had been deleted by a second person 6 minutes after it had been nominated by the first person.
Because the page does not now exist, I can't put "hangon" on it. I've done various searches, but I can't find anything that tells me what to do in these circumstances. Please advise.
(Note: I understand why the page was nominated. I understand why the page was deleted. (Though I would have thought one should have longer than 6 minutes to respond - but let's not get side-tracked.) What I want to know is, given I can't put "hangon" on the page, what do I do next?) Thanks, Pdfpdf 15:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should contact the admin that deleted it and get others users and you to oppose its deletion and give reasons for so and why it is worthy to be left on Wikipedia. Also expand it. Wikihobby ҈ ^►^talk

Wikihobby should have explained that you should nominate your article at WP:DRV. Corvus cornix 04:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Famecity revisited

Notes:

I live in Australia. The time zone I live in is called CST and is UTC+9.5
I am placing this on User talk:Eliz81, User talk:Anthony.bradbury, User talk:Wknight94, User talk:Gilliam, User talk:Coredesat and User talk:Pdfpdf

(Is there a better way to do a "group posting"?)

Weeks ago I started creating a page and then forgot about it. It did not assert its notability.

On Saturday 23rd June:

21:12 (CST) 11:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC): Eliz81 noticed this, marked the page for speedy deletion, and left a very nice explanatory note on my talk page.

21:18 (CST) 11:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC): Six minutes later Anthony.bradbury deleted it, leaving: deleted "Famecity" ( { { db-corp } }

21:47 (CST) 12:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC): I left a note on Anthony.bradbury's talk page.

21:52 (CST) 12:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC) I left a note on User talk:Eliz81

Sunday 24th June

no replies received yet.

01:29 (CST) 15:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Still no replies. Left a note on Wikipedia:Help desk

02:00 (CST) Went to bed.

03:00 (CST) 17:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Eliz81 replied

03:10 (CST) 17:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Anthony.bradbury restored page and put a { { hangon } } on it. (Thanks Anthony)

04:00 (CST) 18:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Wknight94 deleted "Famecity" (content was: ' { { db-bio } } { { hangon } } Famecity Entertainment Limited and Famecity Management Ltd are two similar British companies.* Both have the same ...') [No explanation for deletion. No posting on my talk page]

04:02 (CST) 18:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Wknight94 restored "Famecity" [No explanation for restore]

09:00 - 16:15 (CST) - Dog damaged eye. Took dog to emergency vet. Organised operation.

16:15 (CST) 06:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Started to write Assertion of Notability.

16:23 (CST) 06:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Coredesat deleted "Famecity" (CSD A7, no assertion of notability)

16:30ish (CST) (I think) 07:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC) - hit the save button - found that page had been deleted. As advised by Eliz81, now that I had written assertion, recreated page.

17:00 (CST) 07:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Wife ill. Took wife to doctor

18:00ish (CST) 08:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Dog in distress - back to emergency vet.

19:00 (CST) 09:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Gilliam deleted "Famecity" (content was: ' { { db-bio } } { { hangon } }:-----I agree this page did not assert it's importance.
Unfortunately, my dog looks like it's going to lose an eye, so I ha...' (and the only contributor was 'Pdfpdf')) [Pardon?? What is the reason for deletion?]

22:00 (CST) 12:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Got home. Made dinner.

23:00 (CST) 13:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Looked at Famecity page. Not there!! Looked at deletion log. Started writing this.

Monday 25th June 2007

01:00 (CST) 15:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Finished writing this.

08:00 (CST) 22:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Take dog to eye specialist, and then to animal hospital for eye operation.

20:00 (CST) 10:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Look at Wikipedia to see what response I have received.

I thought I had made a copy of my changed page-with-Assertion-of-Notability, but I can't find my copy.

If any of you can resurect the "new" page and put a copy of it in User talk:Pdfpdf/Famecity that would be appreciated. Pdfpdf 15:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Famecity move

I have moved your article to the subpage which you created. It curently does not exist elsewhere in wikipedia. I also removed superfluous tags ands comments. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 15:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the article as it was when it was finally deleted (for the third time) and then removed the {{speedy}} tag, your {{hangon}} tag, and you comments about your family and your dog (for which, my sympathy). Following the manoevring that the article has wirhstood these items are now, I regret, irrecoverable. I did not think that you would want them. My apologies.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to get a list of sub-pages

I have created some sub-pages to my user talk page, but I can't find one that I thought I created.
How can I get a complete list of all sub-pages?
i.e. A complete list of all pages "User talk:my-user-name/my-sub-page-name" and "User:my-user-name/my-sub-page-name"
Thanks, Pdfpdf 16:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Special:Prefixindex, type your username in the top box, and select user talk in the bottom one, then click go. Stwalkerster talk 16:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

or follow this link [8] Stwalkerster talk 16:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

You left a question on the New contributor's help desk, and I thought I'd let you know I've answered it. Stwalkerster talk 16:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of Famecity Entertainment Ltd

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Famecity Entertainment Ltd, by Mschel (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Famecity Entertainment Ltd is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Famecity Entertainment Ltd, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Famecity Entertainment Ltd itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 01:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]