User talk:The-Pope

Gundagai Mtn Range

Pope, why have a mountain range that is at Albury NSW, down as beign at Gundagai NSW. I removed it and Bidgee keeps putting it back. Does wiki want totally incorrect info on its pages. Albury is 130 miles from Gundagai and the Ymabla Mtn Range is nowhere near Gundagai.

Issues similar to this is what bidgee did then ran and made complaints about it and I got banned. Its amzing he wants to continue as what I am saying about the Yambla Range is easily checked and corrected. This is not about me. Its about incorrect information on the Gundagai article.

Talkback @ Peachey88's talkpage

Hello, The-Pope. You have new messages at Peachey88's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Why? :S

why did u delete the Lelo Sejean article? It had references. He is an actual living person. I only made sure to use information im sure is correct. Please reply. thx :) smkaram (User talk:smkaram|talk]]) 21:16, 9 March 2010 (KSA)

Re:Undelete please

Hello, The-Pope. You have new messages at Fastily's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 14:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, The-Pope. You have new messages at Tim1357's talk page.
Message added 02:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I replied Tim1357 ^talk 02:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I made more responses. Tim1357 ^talk 16:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

since A Practical Reference to Religious Diversity for Operational Police and Emergency Services was redone....

I was wondering if someone could notify the users who posted, especially early on in the deletion process, that the article was greatly re-written and if they could take a second look. I know some have continued to note it for deletion but most haven't spoken again since the re-write and I've tried to frame which aspect of the notability of a book it may fall under near the bottom of the deletion discussion. I also understand from reading Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#You_may_edit_the_article_during_the_discussion that there may be some room for moving viable content into the Australasian Police Multicultural Advisory Bureau article if it's deleted, or indeed there is even the possibility of an appeal though of course that's probably rarely done, and even more rarely successful. I'd welcome your thoughts. Smkolins (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If it is clearly stated in the AFD that the article has been improved, and there is a swing towards keep by the later reviewers, the editor who closes the AfD should take the state of the article as it stands now into account. AfDs are not a vote, it isn't done on pure numbers. It's done as per the policies and guidelines. Having a quick look at the article for the first time since I nominated it, it does look much better, but it really isn't my area of expertise nor interest, so I don't think I'll evaluate it any further. My nomination was more procedural than any real desire to delete.

If you think it still might be deleted, then I'd save a copy for yourself as a backup (just copy the text from the edit window into a text file). Just don't recreate it unless you address the main issues that the closing admin states. I've never really had anything to do with DRV, so I'm not sure about undeleting. There is, however, nothing stopping you duplicating some of the information into the article now. Many articles are partially duplicated in different articles. As for notifying users who have already commented, you might want to read WP:CANVASS first to see if it is allowed. I'm not sure of the guidelines in this area. You could look at WP:DELSORT to see if there are any other lists that could be notified to get a wider audience. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Rollback.

Useful! Thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Curious on Unreferenced BLPs

Is there a way to merged some BLPs under one article if they fall under the same topic and are only notable in that certain topic? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't be sure without knowing which BLPs you are talking about, but in the past we've redirected footballers who were drafted, but never played, to a list of players, rather than have their own page. See Ashley Clancy and the AfD that endorsed the idea, for an example. Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 11:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is actors in the Mortal Kombat franchise John Parrish (actor), Eddie Wong,. John Turk, Kerri Hoskins, Becky Gable, Elizabeth Malecki, Katalin Zamiar, Anthony Marquez, Daniel Pesina, Carlos Pesina, Ho Sung Pak, Richard Divizio, Sal Divita. Only about 2 of them are unreferenced but all of them lack notability. Recently also, Bryan Glynn (actor) and Lia Montelongo were deleted but I think they could all go in one page. I just want a second opinion. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Unref BLP Project Figure Skating - a little more time?

Regarding your note here [1] about unreferenced BLPs, right now Project Figure Skating appears to be critically understaffed. I think most of these unreferenced skater BLPs were ultimately based on reliable sources, and many of them are not even necessarily BLPs. They seem to represent a fair amount of work by somebody, most of it probably salvageable. I'd prefer to whittle away at these at leisure, but June 1st is a pretty close deadline for covering all 113 of them.

In about an hour, I was able to determine that one bio (Yvonne Schulz) probably belongs in German Wikipedia but not English Wikipedia, that another was not for a living person (Walter Muehlbronner - I gave it some cites anyway) and that a third (Walter Bainbridge) was probably for someone still living but also easy to find cites for. However, I might not be able to put more than an hour a day into this, and I might not be able to rouse other Project Skating editors from whatever is preoccupying them.

What should I do? Maybe run down the list [2] and figure out who's at least no longer alive? That might still leave more work than I can finish by June 1st.

I realize that asking for a deadline extension is very unreasonable, especially considering that (compared to rugby, anyway) skating is hardly even a sport. ;-) I throw myself upon your mercy. Yakushima (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No need to worry, there is no hard deadline, the June 1 deadline was to get to 30,000 in total, which is about 5,000, or about a 15% reduction, from where we are now. If you could do your bit, even 10-20 in that time, it would all help. We have identified about 500 WikiProjects (inc subprojects/taskforces) that have unreferenced BLPs - if they all only do 10 each, that is the 5000 done. If they do 10 per week, then that is almost 20,000 in a month! In total, taking in the increase from people still adding to the number by tagging articles, there is a 100-300 drop each day. If we leave it all to the 20-50 people invovled in the BLP issue, then we need to do 100 each. Spreading the load makes it all workable.

Some projects, like the Football/soccer one, Metal music and the big country based ones (Australia, Canada, Japan etc) have been doing this fairly well since the beginning of the year - but we've also already done the "easy" ones and are left with the more obscure articles, so it is slower going now.

We know that we are all volunteers, and editing time is limited, so no one can really complain if everyone just does whatever they can do, whenever they can do it. We're not going to be too critical of projects that don't do as well as others. We are also aware that some articles were mis-tagged - either like you said they aren't living, or already have some references. The key is breaking it down by WikiProjects gives people workable lists of articles that they know something about, know where reliable sources can be found and can clean them up a lot better than lists of "articles tagged in June 2008".

So thank you for your efforts and understand that if everyone does something, even small, then the project aims will be achieved.The-Pope (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"BLPrefimprove" tag in John Gallagher (barrister) article

Your Goaliness,
I think the {{BLPrefimprove}} tag should be retained. There are only 6, and 4 of them are from the ABC itself; the other 2 are a Google Books cite and a primary source. I added them to save the article from deletion, and would argue that the article, as a WP:BLP, should still be better referenced. Your thoughts?
--Shirt58 (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Louis J Cabri

Then make yourself USEFULL and change the class instead of putting stupid tags on usefull biographies. Other reviewers have been usefull and agreed the biography is Wiki worthy, so I don't know WHO you are and which credentials you have to say otherwise. Rempval deniedKunsthistoriker (talk) 10:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Pope, I am NOT a newcommer, re my articles about e.g HENRY RAEBURN DOBSON in English and GHISLAINE DE MENTEN DE HORNE in Dutch and my article about this family and their War Record in Dutch. These articles are duely sourced, as is the one about the mineralogist. So I know how to source an article. But, there are always "know-betters" who - instead of contributing with constructive criticism - have the tendency to just destroy some work instead of bettering it. Your tags and comments were insulting and misplaced, especially when other reviewers like discospinster aknowledged it as Wikiworthy. How come you assume your own thoughts as being irrevocably right, without giving a valid argumentation ? Just a Tag ? Of course I am always updating it and bettering it. And would appreciate your constrcutive criticism. But what I CAN'T stand is un-cooperative know-alls. I hope you will give more constructive comments in the future. I read your talk page and many people are complaining about the way you intervene. Sorry about my comment, but I don't think this is the only comment about how you communicate with people. Kunsthistoriker (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Pope, Let's close this argument. I have said what I wanted to say. It's the way you communicate. I have no problem with the fact that you delete or replace or better the article and I take all criticism into account. Didn't you mention the article it's of no importance ? Well, so isn't the article about Douglas Morpeth. At least Cabri discovered two new minerals. Morpeth didn't discover anything. He was a simple accountant and got a knighthood for playing around with figures and numbers for 40 years. Very important, indeed. So, I start to be a bit fed-up with people putting tags and unconstructive comments on the talk page, while I am constantly working on the biography ãnd asking other Wikipedians what they think about it. HAVE SOME PATIENCE ! Thanks Kunsthistoriker (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Pope, NO you DIDN'T do anything wrong....noboy does anythng wrong here...they are only IMPATIENT. If you think it normally takes me two or 3 years to write a scientific article about an artist, producing a small bio about a guy on the other side of the world is RECORD speed for me. But, I took your comments into account and today I verified all his awards and achievements and cleaned up the header like discospinster asked me to do and took all the non-referenceable items away. I don't want it to become a promotional page for the man, where he is glorified. That is what I have against the bio of Douglas Morpeth. It's NOT seriously researched nor referenced. But, if other wikipedians think its ok, so be it...who am I anyway... :-) Case closed...keep well Kunsthistoriker (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I got a laugh : Louis J Cabri is ALREADY mentionned by somebody else in THE Wikipedia under CABRIITE, a mineral named after this scientist. For the rest he is NOT important...They only name minerals after him....I won't think WE will get this honour ! Kunsthistoriker (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

So, as I understood you well, I just leave the tags on the discussion page as they are...OK. Keep wellKunsthistoriker (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

So are you admitting that this "un-cooperative know-all" did nothing wrong except put the standard biography tag, the same tag that is on every bio in the wiki? Maybe apologies are a cultural thing. The-Pope (talk) 11:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Idea Barnstar

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For your idea of effort of putting together this helpful list. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to send you the same barnstar. Thanks so much for the lists, until you started this I was just using the random unreferenced article function which was hit-or-miss in finding something that I was interested it. So, thanks from Wikiproject Musicians! J04n(talk page) 15:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I've said from the very beginning of the UBLP issue in Jan, that the problem was that people don't want to reference a random article, or an article from July 2008 - or if they do, they'll only do a few. They generally want to reference an article in an area that is of interest to them, and also one where they know the location and reliable of the sources. There is/was the Wolterbot cleanup list, but UBLPs are just one of hundreds of cleanup cats, and that list only gets published every few months. At the moment I'm trying to reference an article or two from lists that haven't been updated for a few weeks... and I don't have a clue which US Major League Soccer references are reliable, or Ugandan political references.. but I'll do a few for fun! Thanks for the thanks, and well done again on WP:Music's efforts. The-Pope (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the constructive information you provided to my talk page. It was well appreciated and also useful. On a similar subject, a template I have made is up for deletion. I would be curious as to your opinion in this regard. The template is named {{Source Style}}. Again thanks.My76Strat (talk) 10:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced Biographies of Living People for Physics and Mathematics

I noticed that you left a message at the Physics project alerting us to the list of UBLP for the Physics project. But I do not see any corresponding information for the Mathematics project. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Why? JRSpriggs (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Every project has to be added individually. I've added what I think the WP:Mathematics Project uses as it's defining template, {{Maths rating}} to the Bot's list, that will output to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Unreferenced BLPs as the next run at about 0500 UTC tomorrow, but in the mean time I think I've only found 5 articles using a recursive scan under Category:WikiProject Mathematics articles, a slightly different method from what the bot does. I'll post something to your project talk page.The-Pope (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects/Templates

Hi, I've been using the link at User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects/Templates to get to Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Unreferenced BLPs for weeks now and for some reason it was gone today. I put it back but I'm not positive if I did it correctly so that it will be updated daily. Can you please double check for me? Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

As the WP Music doesn't have it's own template, but instead is a parameter in the {{WPBiography}} template, it is listed on User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects - the page that uses categories to make the lists, not User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects/Templates which uses templates. You will, however, find a lot of the specialist music projects, Wikipedia:WikiProject Hip hop, Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music, Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal etc, are now listed on the templates page. I just moved the Metal one from the category page, to the template page - that might have confused you! I have the /Unreferenced BLPs pages of the projects I follow on my watchlist, so each day at 5:00-5:30 UTC I get the updates showing up there. Doing a User Contributions in Wikipedia namespace for User:DASHBot is also very useful.. like this. The-Pope (talk) 11:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and your assumption is correct because I always start at the metal page then go to musicians. You're doing a great job with this, it is well appreciated! J04n(talk page) 11:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I'm happy to be the enabler and compiler... we need more people like you are actually getting the UBLPs removed from the lists! Looks like we'll meet the 30,000 target... I just hope that there isn't too much "referencing fatigue" afterwards. I know with WP:Australia we raced down to about 300 from 1600 in a couple of months, then had a bunch of soap opera actors added to take us back up to 600, and we're only now getting back under 400 in the past 2 months. Very slow going. I've compiled a list of about 900 people in the Category:Musicians tree, but who don't have the musician-work-group=yes flag set, so I've been going through that over the past few days - so that's why some of your numbers are going up. We need some Classical music and Hip hop fans to be as good as the Metal and opera ones! Keep up the great work, cheers, The-Pope (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced biographies - WikiProject Pornography

An editor has been replacing the standard "This is an unreferenced article" template with {{BLP IMDB refimprove}}. Can we get this new template added to the list of templates that trigger an unreferenced BLP warning for WikiProject Pornography? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 08:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There has been general consensus that whilst IMDB isn't a great reference, it is a reference, so they are being moved from the unreferenced category to the ref improve category. There is no immediate plans to use the DASHBot system to develop lists for other clean up categories. Your best bet would be to either hope that Wolterbot's Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography/Cleanup_listing gets updated soon or to generate them yourself using either the Category intersection tool or the list comparer function in WP:AWB.The-Pope (talk) 11:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)