User talk:Shirt58: Difference between revisions
Whommighter (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
m Reverted edits by Whommighter (talk) to last revision by Vrenator (HG) |
||
| Line 213: | Line 213: | ||
{{Talkback|Vrenator}} |
{{Talkback|Vrenator}} |
||
== What the hell == |
|||
Parabolae are negative definite! |
|||
Revision as of 08:31, 13 October 2010
"The superfluous, that very necessary thing..." - Voltaire
| User Talk | ||
|---|---|---|
|
DYK nomination of Myer Rosenblum
DYK for Myer Rosenblum
Re: Jon Elia againThank you for the heads up about the article. I am not very active at Wikipedia that's why I did not answer before. Today I logged in after many months to remove an obvious vandalism and got your message. The Urdu text that has been added to the article is Jon Elia's poetry. I can personally confirm that. I think it is from his first book, but I'll have to double-check that. The editor has put his poetry in the article in a way in which the location of this poetry in the article is very crucial. The piece of poetry from the subject's own work is an ironic reference to things mentioned in the lines just above Urdu text. This comes from the traditional style of Urdu essay writing. Urdu prose is often peppered with subtle poetic references which culminate at the inclusion of complete verses relevant to the topic being discussed. The editor who added this poetry is obviously fond of Urdu literature. Is it appropriate to do so based on Wikipedia's policies, practices and traditions? Or is it necessary to translate this Urdu text? This is for the Admins to decide. I'll try and add the references these verses if other's like to keep them for good. Translating poetry is often a difficult feat and usually results in unimpressive results as the translation looses the spirit and rhythm of actual work. Szhaider (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Please be carefulHow could this be considered an unreferenced BLP? Please be more careful in future. The-Pope (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotSuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping. If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Prodding BLPsHello, Shirt, and thanks for your note! Glad to know there are other people going through the backlog of unreferenced BLPs. I rescue some and prod others; there are all kinds of people in that backlog, from the obviously notable (cabinet secretaries) to the non-notable (vanity authors). You're right, it is interesting. I have "met" some real characters in that backlog! Feel free to remove the prod from Denise Lutgens, and add a reference if you have one. I didn't find any references in a quick search but she certainly sounded like she could be notable if verification could be found. The article could use some cleaning up as well; at the very least it needs a proper lead sentence saying who/what she is (a Dutch pianist) and why she is notable. Something else to look out for in that article, now that I look at it: the line at the end saying she "now" attends that Gymnasium. I suspect that information is out of date (one of the reasons we are not supposed to use words like "now", "soon", etc.). About that message you got, "Article was created before March 18, 2010, and is thus ineligible for a BLP PROD": I have been prodding older BLPs left and right and never got any such message. But I just looked it up at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people and here's the deal. It appears that there is a different rule and different tag for prodding more recent BLPs (since March 18, 2010). For those recent ones, they use a prod tag that CAN'T be removed unless a reliable source is added. That method is tagged using { { subst:prod blp } } . For earlier unsourced BLPs, I'm guessing we are supposed to simply use the generic { { subst:prod } } instead of { { subst:prod blp } }. That's what I do; I have never used the blp tag. Try the plain prod tag and see if that works. --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
OZ - online gameHi Shirt, just curious to know why you deleted this as advertising [1]. AFAICS, it's a game port. We have an enquiry over at WP:EAR. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 09:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the note - I don't think it's bad enough to warrant a "Speedy deletion", but I know little about rock music or the appropriate notability guidelines. Perhaps its should go to AfD, together with the article on The Outskirts to get a proper opinion from those who know about these things. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
ProlificI don't know... I see it's rather silly define here a writer "prolific", and I think fundamentally looks like a case of WP:Weasel word. Where's the point? Where's the encyclopedical information we give by that? I think the reader can decide by himself if one is prolific or not looking at its bibliography. Anyway, let me know... It's not such a matter. Good work!! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC) AfD for Osnat ShurerHi all,
Eugene "Sdwig" ZvidionnyHi Shirt58, I've declined your sticky prod for Eugene "Sdwig" Zvidionny because the article was written before the March 18 2010 cutoff. In fact it goes back to 2005, when rules about sourcing were much laxer. If you can't find references for him then you could still take it to AFD, though I suspect if you can translate from the Russian there'll be plenty of sources available. ϢereSpielChequers 23:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC) DLPWhere to begin? This is pretty basic knowledge for those in political history - The Age has made the mistake of confusing the year the last DLP members left the Senate (1974) with the last time they were elected (1970). Given that this is a basic fact and covered extensively in Wikipedia (Australian Senate election, 1970, Australian federal election, 1974, Vince Gair, Members of the Australian Senate, 1971–1974 and elsewhere), I considered that this didn't really need a cite. If you feel there is a need, though, by all means go ahead. Another reason for leaving it is finding an ideal cite, though - you can clearly see in many places that in 1974 no DLP Senators were elected, while in 1970 (the Senate election immediately previous) they were. With the corresponding link to the 1970 election, I find a cite somewhat redundant, but as I said, I'm not really fussed about it. Frickeg (talk) 09:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Labor splitThis subject is well overdue for an article (also the previous splits in 1916 and 1931), so I'm glad you've done it! I think you've made a great start. On titles, I think Australian Labor Party split, 1955 is probably best; I'm also not sure about calling it the "Labor Split" in the lead, since there have been three major ones and quite a few little ones. The statement that Santamaria and Mannix felt that Hitler was better than Stalin is quite controversial and will certainly need a dedicate citation. There's also a new book out dedicated to the split that might be helpful (I can't recall it's title right now, but I'll check next time at my library). On the suggested subtitles:
Otherwise, looking great and I'm looking forward to seeing this article grow! I'll try to help out with some sources and things when I'm back within reach of them (later this week). Frickeg (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Nomination of Two Solitudes (Canadian society) for deletion The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Solitudes (Canadian society) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion. You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Shirt58 (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotSuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping. If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 06:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)  You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Ukrainian SaamisHi, you reverted my edit on the Saami page about the Ukrainian Saamis. While I agree that deleting data because it is "wrong" is not proper conduct, I am also struggling to think of any possible reason for the information to be there in the first place. One hundred and thirty six people does not make a notable piece of information make, especially when the data was last current before Wikipedia itself existed. Besides which, the information was not referred to at any point in the article, and I cannot conceive of a situation where my deleting said data could possibly inconvenience a reader. I will not get into an edit war, but I hope you can at least see my points - I edited the article in the honest belief that I was in no way lowering the quality or useful information of the page, and I stand by this opinion. --160.5.228.48 (talk) 12:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC) You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. |
