User talk:Golbez

Bifid rib

Where can you see what got deleted?... for the discussion page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifid_rib
Reference
01:03, 21 May 2008 Golbez (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Bifid rib" ‎ (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page)
-- the zak (talk)

Smile!

A Nobody^{My talk} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

huh?

"since then you have attempted to get multiple articles related to Too Beautiful to Live and public radio deleted based on notability complaints"

I placed a notability tag because I questioned the article's notability; it's standard practice to question the notability of local radio programs. Many local radio programs have had their articles purged on notability grounds. Raising the question to invite deliberation and discussion is permitted. Are you cognizant to the difference between placement of a notability tag and article deletion? One is an invitation to discussion, the other is a unilateral action. I did the former.

"You have removed references to these things on notability grounds, but not touched other references whose notability is also questionable."

I don't know what this means. There was an article entry for a local radio program in Seattle that was 3 pages long with 1 source citation. As one of many articles I've recently edited on topics ranging from zoology to psychology, I added 22 additional citations to said article. These were immediately vandalized/deleted.

"You have to respond to concerns about your editing. You clearly have a bias against these shows or a conflict of interest; if an article is turned into a "fan club" then you can try to repair it, but don't try to delete it."

Incorrect. You are the only person, aside from users registered within the last 3 days, who have raised any concerns about my editing. The one recently (24 hours old) registered user who did, I replied to at my earliest convenience, as I am to you now.

As far as repairing the article, the logs will indicate that's what I did. Recently registered and anonymous users vandalized all repairs and attempts to add editorial balance and context. *I* requested protection for the article after it became clear there was the chance it could descend into an edit war. Protection was granted in response to my request.

Once again, you need to educate yourself on the difference between placing a notability tag as an invitation to discussion on an article's encylopedic value and "trying to delete it."

Wikipedia is an evolving and dynamic resource; it is not a static parking page for reference articles. Entries are updated, edited, added, deleted and evolved as the community contributes. Purging 22 of 23 accepted source citations from an article without discussion or explanation is not a constructive activity. This is why I requested protection for the entry in question and why protection was granted.

Thanks for your input!

Warmest Regards --- User:Notabilitypatrol

Complaint about Notabilitypatrol regarding TBTL

I've also tried to engage Notabilitypatrol on this issue with little luck. Notabilitypatrol's commentary has extended to the TBTL website, where he attempts to disrupt the website's infrastructure and participation through the comments section. Details revealed on the program's website as well as Notabilitypatrol's writing style make clear that he is responsible for some of the bullying occurring on that site. The changes Notabilitypatrol made to the TBTL Wikipedia entry were particularly concerning because they bordered on slanderous.

As I wrote in the TBTL discussion page (some of this is altered with new thoughts, though :)):

If someone links to the audio files from which much of the original content is derived, will you just let it go? I'd like to publicly say, no one is trying to undermine the integrity of Wikipedia as an incredibly useful resource. I think all parties understand the spirit of the site and I think a reasonable person could identify passages on the page that offer "context" and "editorial balance" (by the way one could argue that the information that he added--that had been deleted--was intended specifically to create a negative impression of the show and its host, and that the content did not add editorial integrity).

To tell you the truth, I don't think the program or the host is too concerned about the entry--so if the "powers that be" find that the entry is in violation no one (maybe some fans) will be terribly offended by its deletion. And while I'm not convinced that formal mediation is warranted or necessary, I'm intrigued by the principle of the thing, I value truthfulness, community, and goodwill, and I'm concerned that Notabilitypatrol's editorial additions and his move towards "formal mediation" is an admittedly masterful effort to manipulate Wikipedia's editorial guidelines and principles with malicious intent. Best wishes. MikFantastik (talk) 10:15, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Sears Tower protect

Am I to infer that you are an Administrator (and thus able to issue a temporary protection of the Sears Tower page)? It's not immediately clear on your User page.

Regardless, good move. Hopefully a week will do it; time will tell. The matter is an absolute no-brainer: the tower is NOT the Willis Tower at this point, it remains the Sears Tower. When it changes the Wikipedia page can be changed to reflect it, not before. There is adequate content in both the Intro and a specific Naming Rights heading indicating the Willis Group has made a deal and that the name change will follow later in 2009.

Last thing, which you can deal with not I: a final sentence of vandalism was added to the latter section which begs deletion. Whenever you can take care of it. Regards. Wikiuser100 (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

TransCaucasia maps

Here are the maps I said I'd scan for you. They are only from photocopies, but I don't think anything has been lost by the loss of colour.
http://rapidshare.com/files/209212119/armenia1919.jpg.html
http://rapidshare.com/files/209212117/azerbaijan1919.jpg.html
http://rapidshare.com/files/209212118/georgia_1919.jpg.html
Meowy 17:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

comment

Thank you for your comments which were taken as very un-civil considering you are an admin. Of a more worrying note is your action, to warn only myself and not an editor who appears to demonstrate ownership of numerous articles. Even if i were to add a third party picture, which for arguments sake was of far greater quality , i believe that my edit would be reverted, (which i have now done and added an alternative picture which i stress is a third party picture and up-to-date. --Rockybiggs (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

Unsubscribe · Single-page · Full edition »

  — 16 March 2009

• News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Arlington Cemetery

Would you be so kind as to weigh in on more back-and-forth regarding the photo on Arlington Cemetery station? I think we need a third opinion on this matter, and you've always been helpful in giving some extra insight into these kinds of issues. It's between File:Arlington Cemetery Metro station.jpg and File:Arlington Cemetery Metro.jpg, and the arguments have been made in the edit summaries. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh

Re: this article's protection - would you please either unprotect it (best action), or return it to the version before the wholesale drive-by revert by Elsanaturk. There was no "edit war", and your actions are not at all helpful as they stand. Elsanaturk removed a lot of material that was completely non-controversial and which nobody had objected to, and a lot of material that we had been discussiog in the talk page and which is now settled. About the only thing that is causing difficulties is the nature of CA's absorbtion of Artsakh, and the nature of the Treaty of Kurekchay. Both were being constructively discussed and protecting the article does nothing to encourage that discussion. Meowy 03:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)