User talk:Tagishsimon

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

Tagishsimon Talk Archives[edit]

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Surrey Institution to geolocate[edit]

I presume the map link I have just added to Talk:Surrey Institution is enough. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Up early this morning. See Talk:Holophusikon, Rotunda radicals and Blackfriars Rotunda. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

All (almost) becomes clear: I was baffled by the cover picture of Parolin's book until just now. [1] is a panorama (1792) from the top of Albion Mills (burned down in 1791) by Robert Barker. At the bottom and inverted is the frontage of the Leverian Museum. It seems clear that the picture Parolin uses is in some way a descendant of the panorama or its preliminary drawings. Very odd: walking around on Monday I just couldn't figure the angles at all. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16[edit]

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

Beargarden (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Rose Theatre
Godfrey Sykes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Michael Angelo

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Monty image[edit]

Hi Tag. Thanks for your support. Yes, we certainly do. This is an example of The National Archives' collection of war art (INF 3), produced by Official War Artists during the Second World War, under contract to the British Government. These images are Crown Copyright - giving them, on the one hand, long copyright terms but on the other, giving us the freedom to release them early.

Is that helpful? I can explain more fully if you want to know more. --Mr impossible (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Herne Hill[edit]

Great, thanks. I'll wait a few days for any other contributions to filter through and then kick it over to the GA guys. Tommy20000 (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tag, thanks for looking over the article. I'm happy with all of your copyedits and I'm going to rewrite the intro when I get a chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy20000 (talkcontribs) 12:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the article, it's a much better read now than a week ago. I think the only real weakness at the minute is the reliance on the Kent Rail and Disused Stations history websites in the first history section - I'll try to find the facts in printed history books before submitting the article for GA peer review. Tommy20000 (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, after seeing the backlog for GA reviews, I've gone ahead and nominated it. Tommy20000 (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Re:Joanna Yeates[edit]

Thanks. Good to see it promoted. Looking forward to finding my next project. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite


Hello Tagishsimon. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.


You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

PROD[edit]

Proposed deletion of CNN opera[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article CNN opera has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:OR, one link from 2006 mentions term, orphan for over 3 years, fact query outstanding for over 5 years, no citations or sources

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Smerus (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Holophusikon[edit]

I have moved it to Leverian collection, not quite what you suggested. This for example is about the collection's history as a whole, which began in 1760. Anyway, returning to this beats trying to mow the lawn in the rain today. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

C16 theatres in London[edit]

28-page illustrated general overview from Museum of London Archaeology Service just attached to The Theatre. Worth five minutes of anybody's time, I promise! --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Rainy afternoon, so I've updated the Adams map in the Globe Theatre article, where his mistake was most obvious. I'm hesitating before changing it anywhere else, in case you have any comments. All the best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Authority Control Integration[edit]

Hi, I've been researching the intersection of Wikipedia and Authority Control, and have just recently made a Village Pump Proposal to create a bot to expand the usage of a template. I've identified you as someone in the sphere of interest to this project and would appreciate your input at the Village Pump. Thanks, Maximiliankleinoclc (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your work protecting Dunning-Kruger effect. That article's a magnet for junk edits. MartinPoulter (talk)

Wikimapia links[edit]

I was using this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sitush/Sandbox3 the tail end of the list appears to be the coordinated using source:Wikimapia. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:coord unsourced[edit]

Can we re-work this template into into a banner-less version? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Knife_Edge_-_Two_Piece_-_Henry_Moore_1962_-_Westminster_-_London_240404.jpg[edit]

Hmm. {{coord missing}} doesn't seem to list File namespace things :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Roger Steare[edit]

I invite you to scrutinise my edits, per Talk:Roger Steare#Additional material. I trust you will find nothing untoward. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Re the RFA[edit]

I don't want to clutter the RFA with further tangents, but to be clear on my stance, please see my opinion here: [2] The method that you are choosing to express your opinions is disruptive; it is not the opinions themselves. --Rschen7754 07:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Diffs[edit]

I edited a couple of links in your RFA comment to use {{Diff}}; hope that's OK. That template ensures that links will work across protocols (http:// vs. https://) and between our desktop and mobile sites. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Works for me; ta. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Just found User:Scottywong/diffconverter. Not tried it yet. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Re:Absolute Radio co-ordinates[edit]

Thanks, not quite sure why someone added them in the first place. :) Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks back ;). It's a limitation of the admirable The Anome's admirable bot; but yes, long overdue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm always right....[edit]

...but, of course, you have a point. But since I'm right and have to have the last word, let me point out that iOS (which runs on iPhones and iPads) is originally derived from, but quite different from OS X (which runs on Macs). ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Tagishsimon. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Wikipedia:Be_a_man_wasn.27t_given_a_fair_shot..
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Be a man[edit]

Did I convert Wikipedia:Be a man into an essay correctly? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, pretty much. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Loch Tarsan[edit]

I note your amendment. By definition, surely a reservoir is fresh water and doesn't need to be stated. I am new to editing and would appreciate your advice. Braddy55 (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Ref desk[edit]

If you have an issue with something I've said, then ask me about it. Don't take it upon yourself to be a nanny or a censor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't post off topic stuff in the RD. Better than that, don't post at all, Bugs. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I generally value both of yous guys's contributions. μηδείς (talk) 07:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Dudes, I asked the question. I don't disagree with either of your contributions. But I only want linguistic answers, and so I have hatted you both, not because you are wrong or because I haven't benefited, but because the answers aren't linguistic. Tagishomon, you seem entirely to have missed that this is a language question about language on the language desk. Don't make me file some sort of complaint. μηδείς (talk) 07:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The question is whether the guardian is Scandinavian. In context, this means is it antisemitic like Scandinavia. Answering that inevitably does require discussion of whether the guardian is antisemitic and whether Scandinavia is antisemitic. By contrast Bug's post is some whinge about it being easy to like Hamas if you are not being attacked by them. If you cannot see the difference in relevance between those, Meideis... --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Incredible. This goes to AN3 next. Stick to language and lay of the political stuff. μηδείς (talk) 07:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Try not to be a hypocrite, Medeis. It's quite gobsmacking to see you issueing a 3rr after you've, err, 3rrd. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Moody's fix and related topic[edit]

Hello Tagishsimon, since you mentioned recently you would be willing to help again with Moody's-related articles, I do have two things to bring you. One is another problematic change to the Moody's Investors Service article. The same IP address editor you had reverted recently returned to remove Moody's Analytics from the "See also" section to add S&P and Fitch. But these firms are already mentioned in the article, whereas Moody's Analytics is not. I believe this is not how "See also" is intended to be used. This is the edit I mean.

Secondly, I recently mentioned that if I had any proposals on the topic of Moody's that I would bring this to you. For the Raymond W. McDaniel Jr. article, I have recently completed a new draft version that I had worked on writing and researching. I am seeking consensus for my draft to replace the current version. Would you consider this change? Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You'll see I've acted on both of these. Thanks for pointing me at them. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the Brick Lane Market help[edit]

My classmate asked for some help with our Brick Lane Market article, but he meant to link the article's talk page. Anyway, our list of initial references was thrown together somewhat quickly for a deadline. We ended up using all different references, so thank you! - D4n2elle (talk) 02:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 46-48 Brown Street, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oriel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Found out by a bot. Curses. Sorted (though I tend to doubt whether oriel is the best description. But that's another matter entirely. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Moody's, one additional request[edit]

Hello, Tagishsimon, I am sorry to bother you again, however I noticed only today that one of your hiddden comments about preserving "Aaa" in the MIS article accidentally has resulted in significant portions of the article becoming hidden from view, including the comparison of credit ratings. And within it, once restored, there may be just one more "AAA" in the table to adjust. Anytime soon you are able to update this will be fine. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Stupid me. I hope it's fixed now; I couldn't find another AAA, but if there is one, or if there's anything else wrong, please let me know. I have to dash now and won't be online 'til Tuesday next. Have a good weekend. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, it is now fixed, and the old "AAA" is no longer. Many thanks again! Mysidae (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

David Marchick[edit]

Hi there, Tagish. Well, I don't know what it is with projects on which you help me with, but it looks like the David Marchick entry is not faring so well. Last week, it was put up for deletion by an editor who does not like me very much (even recently, he has identified himself as a critic of mine) and obviously chose not to notify me, you, or Cupco of the nomination. Bad form, to say the least. And then today an editor who supports deletion has started removing material from the article based on primary sources—not that their accuracy is contested, just that they are not secondary sources, which is true. For what it's worth, at the moment I haven't received any feedback from Carlyle or Mr. Marchick about their thoughts on it, so I am going to leave it be. Up to you whether to get involved, but at least I figured you should know. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Mmm. I spotted something was afoot. I'll have a longer look at it all sometime tonight. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
After posting this, I went to leave a similar note on Cupco's page... only to find he'd been blocked for sock puppetry in the meantime. Which is unfortunate, but, oh well. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Henry Percy, 11th Duke of Northumberland[edit]

Your addition to the article: "..... and for excessive and adventurous drug taking" was out of order, because there is no reference that backs this up. You have inserted a reference in which the Duchess uses the term "drugs" to describe Harry's medication. She doesn't suggest anything resembling "adventurous drug taking".

Harry Percy did indeed abuse prescription medicine, and experiment with various medications to try and relieve his symptoms, but to refer to him as "being known for ......adventurous drug taking" requires some serious back-up.

Amandajm (talk) 09:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Serious backup is provided by the reference, if you would but read it. Moved to and answered at Talk:Henry Percy, 11th Duke of Northumberland. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

USRD GAs and FAs[edit]

Either start taking some of the USRD GAs and FAs that you believe are nonstandard to GAR/FAR, or stop complaining about substandard USRD GAs and FAs. Your passive-aggressive behavior is not productive and is beyond the pale. --Rschen7754 21:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Zzzz. You well know you have a posse of like-minded USRDers willing to nod-through your GAs. And who are you to judge what is beyond the pale? The point of my posts is to remind you, where appropriate, that your rigid approach to approved sections and your incredibly low standards do not make for good articles, despite their USRD rating. Whether or not you agree with me is besides the point. If you're happy with your low standards, that's fine. I'm not, and I am free to voice that opinion. I'd have more time for you, Rschen7754, if you put as much energy into considering whether standards could be improved as you do in huffing and puffing whenever the subject is raised. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Do you have any particular articles in mind? Also, I think you're missing some of the evidence - see Texas State Highway Loop 118 and the associated GAN(s) and AFD. --Rschen7754 21:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I find any article which relies entirely and solely on a set of maps a somewhat shaky prospect for a GA. That didn't seem to trouble the Delaware article I alluded to earlier. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't rely on maps entirely; it also relies on DOT information. The community has accepted that level of sourcing at the GA level, time and time again. The community has not at the FA level, and all our FAs use plenty of other sources in addition to maps. And for the record, none of us will automatically pass a USRD GAN just because it's USRD; I have failed plenty of them myself. As the one who regularly monitors all USRD GAN/ACR/FAC discussions, I find this insinuation rather insulting. --Rschen7754 22:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The community has accepted that level of sourcing at the GA level, time and time again. More fool it. I'd expand that to "the very small community of USRDers is happy that GA is achievable with the very limited source material available to it". How impressed should I be that a community with GA&FA countitis has prescribed a low bar for itself? Do I care that you feel insulted? Not really. What the hell has that got to do with a discussion of issues? You are part of the group that thinks its fine to GA an article based on a set of maps, and to rule out a requirement for any additional facts - a great embodiment of the No true Scotsman fallacy - that would deny you the GA. You'll have to deal with your feelings of insult all on your own. They don't interest me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation question[edit]

Hello, Tagishsimon, there is an issue I wish to bring to your attention, one in which I believe Wikipedia's policies are inconclusive, but the current situation seems incorrect. This regards Moody's Investors Service and Moody's Corporation. Each article now includes a disambiguation hatnote to a company called Moodyz, one I think it is quite unlikely that anyone would confuse for either (as you will see). My reading of WP:DISAMBIG offers no clear guidelines for determining when a disambiguation should happen, stating it is simply "for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead." There is undoubtedly homonymity involved here, but this is the only potential overlap, and criteria is otherwise unclear. Meanwhile, there are numerous articles which begin with the word "Moody" but only these are so connected. Do you think they should remain, should they be removed, or is there another option? Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I've removed one. The key, I think, is, where do you end up if you enter "Moodys" or Moody's into the search box: answer: Moody's Investors Service (at least for the second; there does not seem to be a redirect for the first. For both - I've added a new redirect. And whether that's the best redirect I doubt: why not to the Corporation? (I'd welcome your thoughts on this side-question)). There is a homonym argument for Moodyz at whatever page you arrive at having entered Moodys, and so I think I'd find it hard to argue against it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I understand your explanation about this, and I am appreciative that you removed the link from Moody's Corporation. (Side answer: Moody's Investors Service is the best redirect for Moody's; it is the company's historical and best-known business.) I still wish to inquire, is it because of the 's and z do you think that Moody would not be preferable as the disambiguation point? For companies with a similar name, see Moody. Moody in fact is a disambiguation page and includes two of the three Moody's-related pages (Analytics but not Corporation) there. Moodyz is not there, but perhaps it could be. Please share your views on this when you are able. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Yup. In my head, a hatnote pointing to Moody does not work, since we are dealing with the possessive Moody's or the z variant. However, were there to be a Moody's (disambiguation) page, that would be an entirely different kettle of fish. Please let me have your opinion on the changes I've made over the past few minutes. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I think that is a most congenial solution, and a very good idea. I did have another issue to raise with you, but I have noticed you will be more able to respond in 48 hours, so I will wait for then. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Raise away; I have a minor drama on my hands, but happy to turn my mind to Moody's again. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hurricane Sandy vs Global warming in the Media[edit]

Your 17:18, 6 November 2012‎ contribution to Hurricane Sandy#‎Relation to global warming was recently removed by NewsAndEventsGuy (talk · contribs) because 'hounding and offpoint; editor (bad) behavior is unrelated to meteorology or global warming'.
If you feel media coverage Wikipedia's issues with covering climate change should be mentioned, perhaps a better location would be in a relevant section of Global warming and/or Reliability of Wikipedia.
Sowlos (talk) 10:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Surtsicna (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for making personal attacks on other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
This was grossly inappropriate, especially as you were already aware that this egregious violation of WP:NPA had been flagged at the admin noticeboard. Accusations of bias are serious, to be sure, but pursuing reparations by flaming people to hell on article and user talk pages is never the right response. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Tagishsimon (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

There was no personal attack in the diff you posted. As you say, accusations of bias are serious and it is entirely reasonable to demand that the accusation be evidenced or withdrawn. Neither was I aware of anything on the admin noticeboard. Tagishsimon (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I have just done a search on all the known planets, and "you are a deeply flawed individual lacking in the basic common courtesies" is apparently a significant NPA on all of them (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.


Sure, but that's just one of the three outcomes I posited; not a personal attack, merely an inescapable conclusion attaching to a person who repeatedly makes very serious allegations but refuses entirely to substantiate them or withdraw them. The user in question has the option to do the decent thing, but chooses not to. As I say, the conclusion is inevitable and entirely self-selected. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no arena in which "If you do not apologise to me then you are a XXX" would be construed as not being a personal attack, particularly where the demand has been repeated more than once. To answer your previous comment regarding notification, you were informed of the ANI thread in this edit, which would have caused an orange message bar to appear on your talk: you had certainly visited your talk page since it was left, as you edited it after that diff was committed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Mmm. I certainly saw the 21:56, 7 November 2012‎ Mysidae post, but not the later one. Have you never missed a post on your talk page when more than one has been made since you last visited it? I'm sorry if you see my most recent message to the user as an personal attack. Sadly, it really is inescapable: if you make a serious allegation and neither evidence it nor withdraw it, then inevitabvly you are a flawed individual. Civil society just works that way. TBH, I see it as a statement of the bleeding obvious, not an attack. YMMV. The irony, of course, is that the user is, apparantly, able to make the most serious attack on me (biased editing) without any sanction. There's somethuing very badly wrong about that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Your unblock request is not the place to request sanctions on other editors. Once you are unblocked, if you wish to try to extract an apology from Surtsicna then you are free to use our dispute resolution systems to that effect. What you are not free to do is to issue demands for your honour to be satisfied on random talk pages. If you do that again, you can expect to be blocked again until such point as you recognise that. FWIW, events which are taken to ANI are typically watched closely in future: if Surtsicna is seen to be attempting to game the system by goading you into making incivil comments (though IMO he hasn't) then you can expect for him to be scrutinised, but you are still responsible for your own behaviour and that means sticking to the community's standards of civil conduct and not just your own. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The talk page was not random. It was the talk page on which the user made the accusation/attack on me and it was therefore an appropriate venue for a discussion about the need either to evidence the assertion or withdraw. Despite your attention to the affair and the pages, the user has already - if temporarily - gamed the system. Exactly which of the dispute resolution systems do you suggest is appropriate in a case where a user makes unfounded accusations against another user as cover for his wish to whitewash an article? [3][4] I have no intention of letting this matter drop. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Moody's[edit]

Hello, Tagishsimon, presuming that you are back I wish to bring to your attention two issues, and please be honest if I am taking up too much of your time with Moody's-related requests. However, you have been responsive and helpful, so here I return. One issue arose only on Friday, wherein an anonymous IP editor deleted all footer content in the MIS article from external links to interwiki links and categories. (It is this edit.) A short time later, an editor using AWB added a warning tag but did not fix it. This seems very simple; will you fix it? The other issue arose earlier in the week, wherein another unregistered editor added a lengthy paragraph about critical public comments by a former Moody's employee. (It is this edit.) This is more tricky: I do not wish to challenge the report, but the detail in light of the article's treatment of this subject seems undue. I do not ask for a whitewash, only for properly weighted context. I do not have a revision to suggest at this time, however first I am interested in your opinion about it. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Tagishsimon, I do not wish to be too forceful, however I would like to see at least the unexplained deletion fixed very soon. If you are still away by tomorrow I will ask after another editor. I hope you return to editing frequently soon. Mysidae (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Tagishsimon, having not heard back from you or the other editor I have approached regarding the critical public comments addition, I have asked about this on the MIS article talk. If you return to editing soon, your opinion would be valued. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
This message is to let you know that another editor has addressed the concern. I hope you return to editing soon. Mysidae (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

GOCE request for John James Rickard Macleod[edit]

Hi. You booked this one a month ago but appear not to have done anything with it, so I'm removing your name from it. Please don't do that, as it may have inhibited someone else who might have progressed it. --Stfg (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Lyttle Lytton Contest for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lyttle Lytton Contest is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyttle Lytton Contest until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Yaksar (let's chat) 18:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Neopagans listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Neopagans. Since you had some involvement with the Neopagans redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). —Sowlos 13:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Files missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

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

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 08:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

WP Geographical Coordinates in the Signpost[edit]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Geographical Coordinates for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 02:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

DNB article evaluation[edit]

In case I can attract your attention to something that came up a while ago.

You expressed interest in doing evaluation of DNB-related articles here. Technology has moved on, and I see a reasonably clearcut way to do this now. A tool by User:Magnus Manske works from Wikisource to Wikipedia, whenever a DNB biography there has been matched to an article here (and over 20K have been). By adding a feature to the tool it should be possible to place evaluation data in a hidden template on the WP page itself. The thoughts from "volume of the month" about ideal-case tracking could be reycled, for the details. Then the tool could pick up the template content. (The tool in question being http://tools.wmflabs.org/dnbtools/dnb_ratios.php, which is already harvesting some templates, explaining my train of thought here). Charles Matthews (talk) 10:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Move request on Thomas Keightley (historian)[edit]

As past editor to the article, you are encouraged to participate in the discussion at Talk:Thomas Keightley (historian) to rename Thomas Keightley (historian)Thomas Keightley since requirements of usage and lasting significance under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC appear to be easily met. Also "Thomas Keightley (historian)" would seem to be a misleading label to many nowadays who recognize him as mythology/folklore writer primarily. --Kiyoweap (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...[edit]

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

re Category:Cartoons[edit]

Technically you're correct, but the problem is that the word "cartoon" is commonly used for two different things: animated films/TV shows, and printed stuff like editorial cartoons. So the reason that this category is a redirect to "Cartooning" is that if there's an active category called "Cartoons" there's a tendency for people to drop animated films and TV shows into it willy-nilly. These are indeed called "cartoons" but it's better to have them in the categories "Animated TV programs" and "Animated films" since these are better placed in subcategories and also it's a mess to have these mixed in with editorial cartoons and so forth. Herostratus (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)