User talk:Malick78

Sybille Bedford

Hey, I thought your additions to the Sybille Bedford article were really nice. So, um, good job! Watchsmart (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. That's most kind:) Malick78 (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ngaire Thomas

On 15 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ngaire Thomas, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ta. I'll do my best:) Malick78 (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Dubious notability

Hi there. We have been scratching each others back in regards to delving into the articles around the Plymouth Brethren. May I ask you for some more advise? How do I get a person of the dubious notability list? My J. Laurence Kulp entry is under threat of deletion. I am happy with what I have written, so cannot improve it. Surely he is more notable than other people covered in other entries.--Another berean (talk) 10:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, I think you concentrate on the wrong thing. His most notable activity would seem to be here:

"During the 1950s he helped convince politicians that atomic bomb testing was a danger to health in regards to strontium-90 finding its way into the human food chain."

Plus the stuff about acid rain. Add that to the lead-in and downplay the Christian stuff (which is important to a small set of Christians only, not the wider world) - which should be in a less prominent section. Then it will be more obvious to casual readers why he is important in the general scheme of things. Hope that helps. :) Malick78 (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, I will have a go. --Another berean (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

:) Malick78 (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Guenther Podola

On 19 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Guenther Podola, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK!

On 21 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Michael Ashby, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Majorly (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Patriarch Alexius II

I have made a suggestion at Patriarch Alexius II#Propose Protecting this Article that I think is workable. It changes the rules a little and should significantly reduce conflict. I would like to invite you to review the proposal and participate in the creation of a great article. It will stop edit warring by restricting work to the talk page in part because reverting another editors comments on the talk page is counter to WP:TALK. Jeepday (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK!

On 2 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John B. Harman, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congrats! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks:)) Malick78 (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

John Bodkin Adams

You have been asked before to stop including him in inappropriate articles and categories, please cease and desist otherwise a request for comment will be opened on your behaviour. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

We had this discussion before, and you lost then too. That's to do with his article, including him in an article for confirmed serial killers is another matter entirely. As I say, if you want your POV pushing to be ruthlessly exposed by edits like this go right ahead, but you won't come out of it looking good. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, I have no position on Adams other than I object to him being included in articles or categories only based on opinion. However, you clearly do have a POV. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The competing viewpoint is right in front of you - he was found not guilty. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sacco and Vanzetti weren't serial killers. I've really nothing more to say to you. He wasn't convicted, he didn't confess, he was found not guilty. Anything else goes in his article where it belongs. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Dialogue isn't helpful when one person refuses to listen and insists on including their own POV in articles. As above, he was found not guilty. There's nothing more to be said on the subject, that alone is enough to justify his removal from any list or article that's not titled "suspected" or "alleged" and since we don't have any of those further discussion is a waste of time. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does. One is fact, the other is opinion. Facts are given more weight than opinion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Bishopsgate bombing

I refer you to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Tit for tat. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Telegraph article and cannabis

Thank you for your addition to the health effects of cannabis article. You asked that information from the telegraph article be included. However, as you will see below, the telegraph article is nothing but very poor journalism masquerading as fact. DrugScope response to Daily Telegraph front-page cannabis story, Friday 11 January Supposed (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Good point. So shall we put in 14 a week? Malick78 (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

London Gazette

I've never had a problem with the linnks opening directly, the .pdf extension should normally be enough. What browser and OS are you using, is .pdf properly associated with Acrobat? You could try going to the Gazette search page, http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/AdvancedSearch.aspx?geotype=London entering Aubrey Melford Steed Stevenson in the "exact" field, and performing the search. That should bring up exactly the Gazettes I added to the article, and see if the links work properly for you from there - the template should be generating basically the same url (it doesn't preserve the search terms used, but other than that). If you have the same problem going at them that way, try contacting the Gazette itself. David Underdown (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As you can see from some fo the other edits I've made, there may well be further info from the same source for other articles you've created on British citizens. I usually find I get the best coverage by searching on full name, then first name, any middle initials (each followed by a full-stop), surname, then all initials followed by surname. David Underdown (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. As for the problem - I think it stems from the files being .aspx files - not a type I've seen before. I use Mozilla so maybe I can reconfigure it to open these automatically in Acrobat. I'll have a go and report back:) Malick78 (talk) 09:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, aspx are generated by ASP.NET and are realy the server side fiels, it should still emit a well-defined pdf file to your browser. Gazette staff have responded promptly to my queries in the past, so it's worth seeing if they're aware of the issue. David Underdown (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps should have asked you first, but I've moved the Stevenson article to simply Melford Stevenson, all the press relating to him refers to him as such, and the Times obituary I found states he "was universally known as 'Melford'", so per WP:COMMON, that's where he should be. David Underdown (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I was puzzled at first but then I realised that that might be why you did it:) Malick78 (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Melford Stevenson

On 8 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Melford Stevenson, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 10 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Styllou Christofi, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—Wknight94 (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Heinz-Wilhelm Eck

You asked for some citations on the claim about British and American submarine atrocities; I've was looking into this and it seems to be true. I've been adding the information to the relevant pages. I've left the Eck page alone so far; it's very apologist in its tone, but I'm not in the mood to tackle it just now. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the info:) Malick78 (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

your comments

thank you for worrying about wikipedia, if you think your deleting of important information just because it makes the statement of the public commission not that helpful to the Berezovsky's theory - it is not my problemCaesar Augustvs (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Everyone has a problem with your edits on the page in question. They are badly sourced. Please try harder:) Malick78 (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Chełm Chalk Tunnels

On 22 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chełm Chalk Tunnels, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks

In this edit, you make some substantive comments about editing the article... (which, by the way, I don't agree apply, but they were at least addressing the article), however, you ended your comments with a personal attack, which is a violation of WP:NPA. Please stick to the issues, and refrain from attacking people you disagree with. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Stop presenting copyrighted work as your own. It brings WP into disrepute. All you need to do is rephrase things in your own words. Your behaviour causes more work for other editors - who have to clean up the mess you have made. You had also been warned about this before. Malick78 (talk) 13:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

A short quote, in quotation marks, followed by a reference to the source is hardly presenting copyrighted work as my own. But now you are trying to deflect the issue at hand. Even if I had violated another WP rule, whether knowingly or unknowingly, that would not justify your violating WP:NPA, in the process of pointing it out. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• It was a whole paragraph! And you had been told about it before. Read the WP guidline I directed you to please. You did not comment on the quoted text - just made it flow into the main body of the text to save time rewriting. Malick78 (talk) 13:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Russkoe Bistro

A tag has been placed on Russkoe Bistro requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), 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 indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Okay. I think you (or whoever) were a bit overzealous there - I made the page and planned to expand on it today. If you'd checked my main page you'd have noticed I've created quite a few new pages and good ones too. That should really have been enough to instil some trust and delay things... I didn't even get a chance to post the "hold on" tag. Also, the "what links here" button can show if things are notable - people might have learnt something about the page by using that. Never mind though... Malick78 (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Inteco DYK

On 29 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Inteco, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 22:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Colin Norris

Sorry if my actions somehow concerned you. I considered the crime unimportant because no article existed for it and there was only one reference for the conviction. A very WP:CIVIL discussion took place here about it. The process worked as it should. Cheers Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 22:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Okay - thanks for the response:) Malick78 (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK: Town Hall of Słupsk

On 9 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Town Hall of Słupsk, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK: Colin Norris

On 9 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Colin Norris, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Spieprzaj dziadu!, was selected for DYK!

On March 15, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Spieprzaj dziadu!, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid (talk) 04:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Murderers of the elderly

Category:Murderers of the elderly, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:LGBT serial killers

Category:LGBT serial killers, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Torture murder

Can I ask that you have a look at recent changes on "Torture murder"? I don't want to get involved in an edit war, but it needs, imho, a bit of attention....Snori (talk) 08:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Okay. It worries me that you think I might be a specialist...;;) Malick78 (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Edgardo Mortara

In Edgardo Mortara, you cited a book by Richard Dawkins several times. Is there anything about Edgardo Mortara in Dawkins' book that Dawkins didn't get straight from Kertzer's book, already cited? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Dawkins says that Kertzer "tells Mortara's story", but doesn't make it explicit that Kertzer is his only source. I would not be against someone changing the ref to Kertzer though (though then the page number will be lost). Malick78 (talk) 10:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Russian apartment bombings‎

Hello Malick78. I noticed that you removed part of Russian apartment bombings‎ article with comment "rmved one 'fact' I don't believe - that this confession is an integral part of everyone's theory of FSB involvement". You are perfectly within your rights not to believe whatever you want, but your disbelief is not a valid reason to destroy WP content. If you read Russian, you can follow link provided after the statement and see for yourself that Galkin's "confession" is still featured front and centre in the book alleging FSB involvement as of March 26, 2008. If you don't, you might want to ask Biophys to translate relevant piece for you, as his anti-FSB reputation is flawless and he can't be accused of sugarcoating facts in order to present FSB in more favourable way. All in all, "integral part" is not WP:OR or WP:POV, it is fact established in book heavily used in the article as WP:RS. RJ CG (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Since this user refered to me, I have to comment. He apparently tells about this your edit. First, this your edit improves English grammar. Thank you very much for doing that! Second, the claim about "integral part of the theory" is obviously OR. None of main sources (the books) tells that testimony by Galkin is so important. This is only one of many events related to the bombings; nothing more; although it was widely publicized. Thank you for removing OR.Biophys (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What is so WP:OR-ish in a statement that if event A is used in theory B, it is an integral part of it? Prominence of event A is another matter completely. Is it sole proof, or one of thousands does not matter. This is like saying that none of single bricks in building is integral to it's structural rigidity. RJ CG (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The cited secondary sources do not tell that testimony was "a cornerstone" (as in your first version) or "an integral part" of anything.Biophys (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

RJ CG, if you say it is an integral part, you are suggesting that there is little else to back the FSB-involvement claims. I doubt this: there are many other reasons to think that the FSB was involved and this is just one of many reasons. It is not the most important - which the wording which I removed suggested. It was a BIG claim, and so needs a great source or, preferably, multiple sources. Otherwise it is undue-weight, or - more likely - OR. But as I said, there are many other reasons to suspect FSB involvement so it just didn't sound accurate. Hence my removal of it. Malick78 (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Recognition

Thanks for recognizing my work on the John Bodkin Adams article. Little notes of encouragement go a long way.--SidP (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

RUTH ELLIS

Hello Malick - In February 2008 do you remember querying the name of Ruth Ellis's son and why so many websites got it wrong? I have just added a section in connection with the 2003 Ruth Ellis Appeal. I wonder how the Evening Standard, who published an article the night before the commencement of the Appeal, got their facts so wrong!Any suggestions?Charlton1 (talk) 12:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi:) Thanks for that, I'll have a look at the article in a minute and try to do some work on it in the coming few weeks:) As for newspapers - small ones especially - they're prone to cutting corners and omitting to research properly... Alas. Malick78 (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mallick -I am absolutely flummoxed. I had no intention of being rude. I made a change regarding Ruth Ellis's mother being a Belgian Jew, because that is the truth and clearly stated in Muriel Jakubait's book RUTH ELLIS MY SISTER'S SECRET LIFE. I also added a few words about Moreen Gleeson, the witness who saw Ruth Ellis on the night of the shooting of David Blakely, and how she thought Ruth was going to kill herself, which is clearly stated in RUTH ELLIS MY SISTER'S SECRET LIFE I see this has also been removed and I don't understand why.Charlton1 (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I saw the editor's response and thought it rather rude - and told him so on his talk page. I think he objected to the style your edit was done - you can type < ref> blah,blah </ref> rather than write in the article text where the info comes from. I'll have a go tonight sorting it out. Malick78 (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mallick. I have also added a section in the PARDON CAMPAIGN.Charlton1 (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mallick. I have also reinstated section about Moreen Gleeson which had been removed without explanation which I trust is OK.Charlton1 (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mallick - I think your changes on the article are very good.Charlton1 (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• It's nice to be appreciated:) Thanks:) Malick78 (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Kot Filemon DYK

On 8 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kot Filemon, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

4/23 DYK

On 23 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Percy Hoskins, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford 22:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Did you know? hook based on a fact from the article you created or substantially expanded, Percy Hoskins, has been added to the Wikipedia Portals, Portal:Criminal justice and Portal:Journalism. Thank you for your contributions in this topic! If you know of another relevant fact from an article that has appeared at Did you know?, then please suggest it at the associated portal talk page.

-- Nice work! Cirt (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, Malick78. You have new messages at RyRy5's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 06:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Malick78. You have new messages at RyRy5's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 07:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Douthewaite

Well, I did ask someone else to review it, but no-one did. Then someone prematurely decided to dump the old hooks (this is happening rather too often lately).

I'm not really inclined to dispute that the guy is probably notable, but surely it wouldn't be that hard for you to find an entry in a dictionary of biography or something? It would give you a solid secondary source and would probably also allow you to add some detail about his life. One of the things I didn't like about the article is that even if we assume he is notable, the article is mostly about the trial again and not his actual career or achievements. Gatoclass (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

5/14 DYK

On 14 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arthur Henry Douthwaite, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford 05:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence

The article probably could be expanded further from the ODNB article, which would certainly make it better than the Douthewaite article which I see you've been having some discussions about (unfortunately Douthewaite doesn't appear there). As with the Melford Stevenson article which we interacted on previously the Gazette and ODNB strongly suggest that Lawrence didn't use the name Frederick, so it might be better to move him to just Geoffrey Lawrence (thought that might clash with the Nuremberg chap). David Underdown (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I could email you a copy of the ODNB article (I don't really have time to do anymore on it at the moment), but your email doesn't seem to be activated (mine is). Looking into the disambiguation a little more, probably Geoffrey Lawrence should be turned into a disambiguation page, rather than a redirect to the other one, and the actual articles should both stay where they are, but just add something in the opening sentence to make it clear which name he actually used - ODNB places Frederick in brackets, as do some of the Gazette entries. David Underdown (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually looking at the facility to email the article from ODNB, I need to know your email to start with, so if you email via the Wikipedia facility, I'll be able to send it to you properly. On the disamiguation, there are instructions at WP:Disambiguation I think, I do it so rarely I always have to use them myself. David Underdown (talk) 09:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've sent you a link to the article, which should give yo free acces for 5 days. If there any problems with that, let me know, and I'll send you the full text instead. David Underdown (talk) 10:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

On 15 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frederick Geoffrey Lawrence, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Edmund Hamer Broadbent

I think that the author of a book first published in the 1930s and which is still in print and available on Amazon would make him notable, don't you? Add to that the fact that he was influential enough to be the subject of a book about his life and works.

I am currently reading his book, The Pilgrim Church, and I wanted to know more about the author. The English language Wikipedia made no mention of him but at least one of the foreign language versions makes mention of him. LittleOldMe (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is I do not know enough about him and any information I've found tends to focus on what he did but gives very little detail (dates, places, solid facts etc.) Were I able, I would have added the detail. I have added a sentence about the fact that his book is still in print.

I apologise for removing the tag without properly addressing your concerns, I thought that my references were enough to show notability. I find it difficult to be professional about this when I am only an amateur. I do not write professionally and make no claim to professionalism and I appreciate any assistance and constructive criticism. Regards LittleOldMe (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Cavendish Children

There seems to have been a lot of deleting and resubmitting of three additional children for the current Duke of Devonshire. Where did you get the info regarding these three additional children? Serisier (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 13 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Archibald Bodkin, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Leonard Arthur

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Leonard Arthur, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 1 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Leonard Arthur, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Nigel Cox DYK

On 9 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nigel Cox (doctor), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations! --PeterSymonds (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

David Moor DYK

On 15 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article David Moor, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations! --PeterSymonds (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Restructuring of Russian Apartment Bombings page

We are currently discussing this. Perhaps you would like to join us, as you have suggested an interest before. Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Help

with the Russian version of the Patriarch Alexius article; it is being vandalised. " Алексий II (Патриарх Московский) " Muscovite99 (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up explanation: a pair of zealots appear to be intent on bowdlerising the bit about his marriage in there. The article seems to be stable just as i am writing this but this may well be a lull before another onslaught. Also, i think you could write a section there on GLBT-related issues -- along the lines of what there is in the English version. There may be some opposition from some quarters, but as for me, i'll support you.Muscovite99 (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• For obvious WP-political reasons, it would look quite wrong if i did it from the beginning. But my plan is this: essentially recover your original text there (it still sits on the discussion page of the article); give it a different headline such as "Позиция и взгляды по нравственным проблемам" and make it a subsection in the "Патриаршество" section at the bottom thereof. But better start it differently: "Резонанс в западной прессе вызвала озвученная им позиция по вопросу о гомо..." and provide some references from IHT et al (these are there on the English side). It is always helpful to drive the point home to the Russians by referring to the Western opnion -- even if they disagree, they start taking it seriously. I'll tidy it up shortly thereafter.Muscovite99 (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have put it there myself (ru:Алексий II (Патриарх Московский)#Позиция и высказывания по вопросам общественной морали). But, i am pretty sure it will take some defending. So please, unless you have got cold feet on the issue, take some time to watch the article as i alone will hardly be able to do that. I mean this bit and also the bit on his marriage which has been persistently erased by one newly arrived editor. Perhaps, you could also provide some additional refs to the western press materials on the issue.Muscovite99 (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to show what i mean See here.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

  If you spend some time on-line, please keep watch over it. This guy continues to make a pig's ear out of it.Muscovite99 (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

John Bodkin Adams - GA review

The seven-day Hold has expired. I will complete the review on the basis of the article as it is now. It would have been useful to have had some kind of comment from you. Brianboulton (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I can see that a lot of work has been done - will try to report on the GA later today. Brianboulton (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Skin Hunters

Yes, the tags are gone, but there's now an active RFC. It just seems to me like there's too much controversy here, and that Poeticbent might bring the tags back, especially if it is linked from the Main Page. Also, this sort of focuses on a negative aspect of living people.

My suggestion is that if you really want it used, get some consensus at WT:DYK. Daniel Case (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That's why we generally avoid hooks about living people whose primary claim to notability is having been accused or convicted of a crime. As for the link, it's WT:DYK, the DYK talk page, not T:TDYK, the suggestions page. Most things that need serious discussion get discussed there. Daniel Case (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Rodney Hallworth

On 10 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rodney Hallworth, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Logocracy

Hi Malick78, I've commented at T:TDYK about your Did you know nomination of the logocracy article. It's currently too short for the requirements, but if you can expand that within the next couple of days, it would probably be approved for DYK use. Thanks, Jamie^☆S93 17:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

9/13/08 DYK

On 13 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Maxim Petrov, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! -- RyRy (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello, Malick78. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Skin Hunters I've asked for a review of all editors actions over this article as I'm afraid it's becoming a bit of an edit war. I've raised my concerns over Poeticbent's edits but have asked for an administrator to review all editors actions as I feel this is fairer. Thank you. Dpmuk (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Skin Hunters

For reference: Skin Hunters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) AN/I thread, #User:Poeticbent and Skin Huntersperm My comment on that thread.

I have opted to take no formal action in response to the Skin Hunters dispute, further to the AN/I thread inviting scrutiny of the editorial conduct there. However, I do wish to issue the following advice:

• When disagreements arise over the content of an article, the appropriate response is to open discussion with the "other side," on the article talk page.
• Should extensive talk page discussion bear no fruit, the parties to the dispute should then seek outside opinions (for example: third opinion; requests for comment). As a further option, seeking informal mediation of the dispute is also possible.
• Throughout editorial content disputes, the parties should remain absolutely civil towards, and respectful of the opinions of, their fellow editors and the other parties. Although tempers may flare at times, one should seek to keep cool and collected; getting angry is simply counter-productive, and as such may be met with a block.
• As a contrast to point one, the appropriate response to an edit which you don't agree with is not to revert or undo that editor's change to a version of the article content you "like." Articles belong to nobody, and everybody is entitled to their opinion. Edit warring is the least helpful response to editorial content disputes possible, and will, in future, be met with a block.

If you have any queries, or require assistance or further advice in the future, please feel free to contact me, either publicly or privately. Good luck with your editing at Skin Hunters, and try and work on the concerns raised in the future.

Anthøny ✉ 13:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Skin Hunters (2)

More comments by me at Talk:Skin Hunters. Dpmuk (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

logocracy-

On 16 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article logocracy, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sanlu Group

On 18 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sanlu Group, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK 24/9

On 24 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Shipman Inquiry, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Lukashenko

We had most of the information already, but just tucked down further in the article. But thanks for what you have done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas Lodwig

On 29 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Lodwig, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Edson Isidora Guimaraes

On 2 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edson Isidora Guimaraes, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 03:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Changeling

Hi there. Just a quick note to explain why I reverted your change to the Changeling article. I can easily see how a quick reading of the first citation after the statement would lead one to believe that Straczynski wrote the film in 11 days, but that one only says that he sold it 11 days after having it passed on to Ron Howard. The second cite is the one used to source the statement that it took 12 days to write. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 21:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The first cite says "[then] I wrote down the draft that I eventually sold in about 11 days", i.e. he wrote it, then it was 11 days before it was sold (though in actual fact, we should use that "about" in the article too). The second cite quotes Straczynski directly: "I wrote the script in 12 days and gave it to my agent, who passed it to Ron Howard, who optioned the movie immediately to produce it." Steve ^{T • C} 07:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you could well be right here. The wording in the first cite just jumped out at me as possibly meaning that he wrote it, not sold it, in 11 days. How couldn't I see that before? Stupid ambiguous Straczynski. :) I'll look for some more cites to prove one way or the other, and I'll be happy to change it back to your wording should it prove correct. Sorry for the confusion. Steve ^{T • C} 07:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I was just wondering, if you have the interview to hand... is that something that I'd be able to see in some form or another in order for me to use it to add to the article? I can't seem to find any edition of the magazine at the places I've tried here in the UK. Sorry if this sounds like a cheeky request, feel free to tell me to naff off without fear of my getting annoyed :) Steve ^{T • C} 23:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Serial killer article revert

Hello, when you revert an article in the middle of a major copy edit could you kindly leave a message on the editor's talk page. I thought I was going crazy. I take it that you adding that portion of the article considering the edit summary comment. That is not an optimal source, as it is an encyclopedia that cites multiple sources just like Wikipedia. If you can find a better source, that would be helpful. In case you're wondering what the major copy edit is about, the article has been selected for inclusion in Wikipedia 0.7, so I'm trying to improve it as best as possible. Thanks, momoricks ^talk 11:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for any rudeness in my previous note. I was a bit irritated and didn't consider the possibility that the article was on your watchlist. You are correct, that information does need to be included. I've learned my lesson regarding removing info from articles. :) Best regards, momoricks ^talk 19:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Offset agreement

On 16 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Offset agreement, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Kongthin Pearlmich

The source doesn't say exactly what the hoax might be, so neither can we. I've rewritten to be more accurate to the source. I think readers will be able to draw their own conclusions. Do you think it reads OK now? Ty 01:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, except that the Telegraph end with a note of scepticism "Experts at Sotheby's and Christie's said they did not recognise the artist's name", so they are casting doubt. Ty 23:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain "torture"

Much appreciate your attempt to get an honest cite of the Times piece into the article. Unfortunately all such efforts have been spiked by the McCain agenda-pushers--just one of the deplorable aspects of what I and some other editors have come to view as a blatant policy of owning the article to exploit it as a channel for free, powerful and far-reaching political propaganda. I'd like to think this subversion will eventually be investigated and exposed, but seriously doubt it: any risk of a finding that confirms or even faintly suggests that Wikipedia has been politically subverted, and that there was wilful and culpable disregard by the admins, will surely be avoided (think of the damage to the credibility of encyclopedia and admins alike). Just my 2c. But mark my words. — Writegeist (talk) 06:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Hanwei Group

On 4 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hanwei Group, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

This DYK notification was delayed due to some mistake in the crediting for a recent batch of hooks (discussion here). Thanks, Jamie^☆S93 11:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help! :-) Jamie^☆S93 18:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Adam Neate

An article that you have been involved in editing, Adam Neate, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Neate. Thank you. Cunard (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Autism and serial killers

Thank you for the descriptive edit summary in your reversion of this comment. I got a bit overzealous in my vandalism fighting yesterday. I worked on that article for awhile but got burned out. If you have time to take a look at it, that would be great. It needs more citations, which is frustrating because there's a list of cited works, but I don't have access to those books to verify what information was pulled from them. Best regards, momoricks ^{make my day} 20:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much! momoricks ^{make my day} 21:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Google duel

I have nominated Google duel, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google duel. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Good luck with your AFD! It's like fighting an uphill battle with these cats. Mrmcdonnell (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Admin Forum on Alex's marriage

• Just for your notice: as the info on the Patriarch's marriage was erased by one of the ru WP admins i raised the issue on the forum there -- ru:Википедия:Форум администраторов#Информация МН в статье Алексий II (every one can read English there)Muscovite99 (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Edward William Pritchard

On 4 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edward William Pritchard, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Alex II

Thanks for your twopence of support on the Russian side - think it is quite hopeless there, though, that is until he stops being a "live person". Apropos this bit, i suspect there may be some misunderstanding involved here. I do not know hwo put this in the first place, but the phrase is pretty meaningless within the context. I suspect it was originally translated by somebody from a russian text and as they ususally are, it was not up to the mark in terms of professionalism. The thing is that all the monks when taking vows, pledge, inter alia, to be "penniless". Naturally, the whole thing is a shibboleth as far as the hierarchs are concerned, which also applies to all other vows. I mean the whole point of Orthodox bishops being monks is essentially a charade. I would suggest we simply erase it altogether, as it does not make much sense within the article and may be rather misleading.Muscovite99 (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Go ahead then. I do not think any one will object. In fact, i cannot put it there as i do not have any reference source but i have unofficial info from the Patriarchate that, funnily enough, all the properety and bank accounts of the Patriarchy are in his sole name and this is legally enshrined in the so-called Гражданский Устав РПЦ, but the current document has never been published and is in fact classified (you can read about it in the beginning of ru:Русская православная церковь).Muscovite99 (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

  Our words do have prophetic power - once in a while :)Muscovite99 (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, i curse him daily (it's like Shma israel with me), but it does not work that way. In fact, i had had a strong hunch about Alex since last spring -- i was simply confident he would not see this year out; and the week prior to his death i had a strong feeling it would happen shortly. Thus it is not so much prophecy as clairvoyance of sorts:) The imortant thing now: that chap from Medvedkovo is back, vandalising the same bit. Although his action now is pretty much against the consensus and could be deemed vandalism, i am a bit wary, as i reverted him already a few times, so help (ru:Алексий II (Патриарх Московский)).Muscovite99 (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Vera Putina

As far as I remember, this story is discussed at lenghth in Yuri Felshtinsky and Vladimir Pribylovsky, The Age of Assassins. The Rise and Rise of Vladimir Putin, Gibson Square Books, London, 2008, ISBN 190-614207-6. Hope this helps. Colchicum (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Fr john's back

again pushing his line in Patriarch Alexy II of Russia: [1].Muscovite99 (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I've put back your edit in Putin, slightly modified - See talk page.Muscovite99 (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Controversial incidents

Hi Malick, I left you a mesasge on the talk page.Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Malik, maybe you want to comment on this here[[2]] as well, Cheers--Jacurek (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Moscow Pride

Hello! Your submission of Moscow Pride at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Otto4711 (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Rebellion: the Litvinenko Case

On 21 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rebellion: the Litvinenko Case, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 06:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Moscow Pride

On 21 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Moscow Pride, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Take notice of

the pending discussion of Putin's pic on Talk:Vladimir Putin.Muscovite99 (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, the "Opposition to homosexuality" section in Alex II article had apparently been removed; i put it back, but i suspect it may take some watching.Muscovite99 (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for The Beggar's Benison

On 1 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Beggar's Benison, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 09:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of John Barnard Byles

Hello! Your submission of John Barnard Byles at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Dravecky (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Catherine Wilson

On January 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Catherine Wilson, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 04:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for John Barnard Byles

On January 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Barnard Byles, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations for your double nom hook! I know it's hard to do. Royalbroil 04:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for John Selby Watson

On January 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Selby Watson, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

JK/BLP

Malick, I've repeatedly pointed the relevant BLP policies which your edits violate. You keep ignoring the existence of these policies and keep asking for a specific policy. Then I point it out again and you keep ignoring it. But let me try one more time:

• Be very firm about the use of high quality references.

Here, in particular, this would mean that newspapers might not qualify. Maybe if you found a scholarly reference.

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.

This one very much applies here.

• Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.

The emphasis here is on 'conservatively'. The spread of this kind of gossip, whether true or not, can be damaging and hurtful. Here conservatively means it should be avoided.

• Biographies of living persons should not have trivia sections.

The parts with Walesa and Palikot were essentially trivia.

And please re-read this part:

• The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.

Hence the burden of proof is on YOU to show that this information is necessary for the article. Which it really isn't. But regardless you have made no effort to provide it or try and meet this burden of evidence, all you've been doing is asking for the relevant BLP policy and when it has given to you (repeatedly), you've been ignoring it. Threats of "reporting" are uncivil. You could be reported for BLP violations yourself. Regardless, bringing this issue up at BLP might be a good idea.radek (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of John Emsley

A tag has been placed on John Emsley requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Cerejota (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Malick78. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota (talk) 08:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Malick78. You have new messages at Alarics's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Alarics (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Polish literature during World War II

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Polish literature during World War II, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Original research

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Passportguy (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Polish literature during World War II

Another editor has added the prod template to the article Polish literature during World War II, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. If you wish to contest the proposed deletion, please remove the “prod tag”. from the article. All contributions are appreciated, but the nominating editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the “prod” template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Varbas (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Poland-related student assignments?

You mentioned "I put the article on WP for a student who couldn't manage themselves". What kind of assignment is this? If you are the teacher, or you know who is, it is highly recommended to list the assignment at WP:SUP. I have run several classes with wiki-assignments, and I'd be happy to offer further assistance with this issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

John Christie (murderer)

Hello there. I've requested a peer review for the article on John Christie (murderer) and I'm looking for feedback from people interested in serial killers. John Christie was a British serial killer from the 1940s and 50s who murdered a number of women but was also controversially involved in another murder trial, where he gave what's now considered perjured evidence against a fellow tenant. The case generated a lot of controversy in the UK. I'm hoping to turn the article into a featured article, so I'm looking for any comments about potential problems or if there's anything that needs improving. The peer review is available here. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

Wcp07 (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Bodkin Adams

Hello, Malick78. You have new messages at Jamesofur's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry William Weston (Early English Navigator) or William Weston (Merchant).

Sorry I started this page William Weston (Early English Navigator) without having found yours. Do you want to merge into yours? Whatever is fine. (Msrasnw (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

I've made a page William Weston (Explorer) and done some redirect things. Sorry for the trouble. (Msrasnw (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

DYK sounds nice but I have only tried that once before and it didn't seem so clear what to do. I am older and wiser now so... and I think they like a picture and boxes but anyway (Msrasnw (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC))

DYK for William Weston (Explorer)

On August 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Weston (Explorer), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Jake Wartenberg 11:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right

I did indeed jump the gun on that one. I'll restore it right away. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• You're good to go. My apologies to you for the mix-up. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for 2009 Chinese lead poisoning scandal

On September 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2009 Chinese lead poisoning scandal, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Reduplicated/double plural

Dear Malick78, I do not think the two articles reduplicated plural and double plural need to be merged because the term "reduplicated plural" seems to refer specifically to the way plurals are formed in some English dialects by means of reduplication, while "double plural" refers to a much broader phenomenon which can be seen for example in the form "childr-en" and in the plurals in some other languages such as Dutch. Greets, Solejheyen (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Kongthin Pearlmich

I have nominated Kongthin Pearlmich, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kongthin Pearlmich. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ^Bongo_matic 03:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Whale meat

Thanks for the edits. It could get good DYK attention in a few days, so having it balanced with no tags would be great. I could sure use a hand fixing it up. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Howard Martin

I'm not sure that this is suitable -- DYK does not run negative hooks about living people, even when reliably referenced, nor highlight articles that are almost wholly negative in tone. In this case I can't see how an appropriate hook could be found. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the bit of the guidelines you point out, there's also the stronger statement (Under The hook/Content): "Articles and hooks which focus on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided." Personally I feel the article just isn't suitable for DYK in its current state, but I wasn't the editor who removed it from the suggestions page. Probably your best course is to start a general thread at Wikipedia talk:Did you know to clarify where the consensus lies on the general principle of including negative hooks to predominantly negative articles where the sourcing is reasonably reliable. You might also discuss the question with Wizardman, who removed the hook from the suggestions page.

As to the "See also" section, it seems to me to be in clear contravention of the BLP policy to link someone who admits to having hastened the death of dying people purely on humanitarian grounds and has never been successfully prosecuted for a crime with convicted or suspected serial killers, such as Shipman & Adams. I agree Moor might be a more appropriate link, but "See also" implies there are similarities between the cases without references, which I feel is problematic -- are there reliable references that have compared the two cases? Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It would certainly be appropriate to start a discussion at the DYK talk page, though getting consensus there can sometimes be akin to herding cats! Espresso Addict (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Whale meat

Hello folks, as expected, the POV tag on whale meat is preventing it from hitting the front page as DYK. I would really like it to make it. As you know, DYKs get thousands of hits. A whale meat DYK might get 5 thousand or more.

This would be very good for the article, as editors would improve it, and neutrality issues would certainly be resolved. Also, if you feel strongly about whale meat consumption, this is a good way for it to get exposure.

So, please, could we remove the tag? Or, if there are issues, could we remove the contentious text for the time being. After DYK, other editors will restore it or leave it out, based on consensus. I hope this seems fair. Time is short, so please act quickly

I also sent this message to User talk:Phoenix7777. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

See also DYK nom. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The DYK came and went. Pity. It would have brought a lot of attention to the article. What changes to the article would make the article NPOV, so we can remove the tag you added? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Government by itineration

Hello, please see your nomination of Government by itineration at DYK for comments.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

...and also the one for Howard Martin, which has a minor issue about a word in the hook. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved. Good luck on the DYK. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

please notify in the future

In the future, if you are going to mention me on somebody's talk page or anywhere else for that matter, particularly if you're making negative comments about me, as you did here [3], I would appreciate it if you'd let me know. Otherwise there's a certain unpleasant "talking about somebody behind their back" aspect to these kinds of comments. Thanks.radek (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Erm, no. Malick78 (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Government by itineration

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Spieprzaj dziadu!

I have nominated Spieprzaj dziadu!, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spieprzaj dziadu! (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Scrapes

Apart from the fact it has nothing to do with Radeksz, the Spieprzaj dziadu! article and the AfD, I am really curious how did you manage to dig up that +8 months old thing.  Dr. Loosmark  20:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Robert George Clements

I have nominated Robert George Clements, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert George Clements. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Claritas § 20:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

probable lover

Please don't put such speculation about subjects in the lede, also there is nothing in the body of the article, if you want to add it and it is noteworthy then cite it and add it to the body of the article, thanks, please place the cites that support this claim on the talkpage for me to investigate thanks. Also if you are going to cite and add it then as it is speculation please attribute where that speculation is coming from, who is is that speculates that and why also, thanks Off2riorob (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Rachel Baker for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Rachel Baker, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Baker 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. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 19:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Islamic marital practices

I ran across your edits in recent changes. The scope of the above article seems to be that of marriage ceremonies and customs relating to finding partners. The material you've added would be more relevant in Islamic marital jurisprudence. Oore (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You'll also want to take a look at Islamic sexual jurisprudence. Be sure to use a reliable secondary source as answering-islam is self-published, and the Qur'an is a primary source. Oore (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, the name of the article has a wider scope than the intro sentence. One of them should therefore change I'd guess. Don't you think?

• Btw, sending people in the edit summary to my page to discuss the edits is probably not a good idea. Editing should be discussed on the article's talk page. Let's do this there :) Malick78 (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mikhail Beketov

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:John Bodkin Adams after trial.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:John Bodkin Adams after trial.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Redlinks

You are correct that redlinks should generally not be removed from the body of articles. However, the "See also" section is different. Redlinks are not permitted in the see also section. See WP:SEEALSO. Yworo (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, all you have to do is write a sentence about the connection, and voila! Or add the wanted articles at articles for creation.

I think the idea is that "See also" is for navigation and they don't want non-working navigational links. Also there aren't supposed to be redlinks in "List of" article, presumably for the same reason. Yworo (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Re Ricardo Teixeira

Sorry for the reverton Ricardo Teixeira. Especially with a claim of bribery, the specific source from the BBC should be provided as a reference. Alansohn (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The source was there, but the first time I looked the final paragraph with the source was cut off. The source is indeed there and the revert was not appropriate. My apologies for my error. Alansohn (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Viktor Kalashnikov

Materialscientist (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Marina Kalashnikova

Materialscientist (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Rudolf Elmer

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The Beggar's Benison

Hi - you list Thomas Erskine as a notable member, but which Thomas Erskine was it? The link previously went to a theologian called Thomas Erskine which possibly wasn't the right one. (I am trying to sort out wikilinks to Thomas Erskine.) I tried the link to footnote 7 but couldn't find anything that looked like a facsimile of a document. Do you have any dates, then at least we might be able to exclude some Thomas Erskines. Or another source? Southdevonian (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I have found the answer - it was Thomas Erskine, 6th Earl of Kellie the composer, not Thomas Erskine the theologian.Southdevonian (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC) And the 9th apparentlySouthdevonian (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of DJ Jabbathakut

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on DJ Jabbathakut requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 12:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of K-Delight

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on K-Delight requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 12:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination for David T. Beers

DYK nomination of David T. Beers

Hello! Your submission of David T. Beers at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Rcej (Robert) – talk 06:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for David T. Beers

Gatoclass (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Catherine Wilson

Hi! I recently found the page Catherine Wilson, which tells a fascinating story. I'm interested in working on its references. I wanted to let you know because I consider it "your" article. Please drop me a note if you have any thoughts about the question I mention at Talk:Catherine Wilson. --Officiallyover (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, I'd be more than happy to give input :) Thanks for the message. Malick78 (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your Poland-related contributions

Hello and welcome Malick78! Thank you for your contributions related to Poland. You may be interested in visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland, joining the project, joining our discussions and sharing your creations with our community.

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Murzyn for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murzyn 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/Murzyn 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 good 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.--Lysy^talk 23:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks

This is very disappointing: [4]. Keep in mind that on Wikipedia we don't like personal attacks, so such ad hominens and poisoning the well are not welcome. Please consider WP:REFACTORing your post. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, you are right, his comment was out of line and I told him so. But you started it, and your bringing up of old history, irrelevant to this article, is very much a personal attack. You should both refactor the posts; I suggest you do so and ask VM to remove his comments. On wiki, we can edit offending remarks out of existence, take advantage of it. Now, I think VM involvement has been helpful, a trial by fire often leads to an improvement of the article. If you'd like me to review specific refs, link me to them, but on a cursory check I recall VM removing unreliable references, such as to an extremist website. Overall, I suggest you take care to format your refs better (with cite templates, and helpful gadgets like WP:REFLINK) and http://reftag.appspot.com. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleting msgs from one's talk page is not very friendly, but is allowable, and if VM thinks you are harassing him with his personal attacks, he may well be overreacting. Again, the right thing to do would be to remove your comments he views as objectionable, and try to reach out to him again. With regards to your references, I cannot speak for others, but they most certainly not match my standards - be it for Wikipedia, or, when I am teaching a class, for my students. For example: SJP.pl - just the name of the publisher, not the article, missing date of publication/access. Czy Obama jest Murzynem?, Juraszek.net - missing name of the author, dates. [1] - totally bare url. O rasizmie w mowie: Dziś Bambo chodzi z nami do szkoły, Gazeta.pl - missing author, dates. [from http://www.wiadomosci24.pl/artykul/murzynek_bambo_w_usa_mieszka_czyli_ile_w_nas_rasizmu_44399.html - another bare url. Public information advert about tolerance: "Twoje zabawki są sto lat za murzynami" - missing author, date, publisher. I could go on, there are others with similar problems. I review DYKs too and I would not let this through till the refs were improved. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Murzynek Bambo

Materialscientist (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Malick78! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Poems

And why did you ask me those questions at the talk page of my DYK subpage? Next time use my talk page, please. I personally asked my friend Richard Tylman (User:Poeticbent) to make translations of some fragments of poetry. He agreed, translated them and requested his name be mentioned along with the translations. All those poems are sourced and all of them are copyright-free as the publishing companies do not exist anymore and the poets themselves are not among the living. - Darwinek (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, however those fragments of poems serve there to illustrate the style of particular author in connection with themes they used. Is there any possibility to retain that in articles? Do you have any ideas? - Darwinek (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You see, Wawrosz and others were local authors with influence stretching mostly only to the border of Cieszyn Silesia, which is culturally rich but geographically small region. It means honestly that no one will gonna sue Wikipedia for using tiny fragments of their poems. In fact, their families probably don't even know about those articles, and if they would, they'd be happy to see them. The shortcoming of the local nature of those poets is, that no English translation exists, so in order to bring it closer to English Wikipedia readers, some translation must be obtained anyhow, or the mentioned fragments should be deleted and the articles would be transformed to mere encyclopedia entries. - Darwinek (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your Poland-related contributions

Hello and welcome Malick78! Thank you for your contributions related to Poland. You may be interested in visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland, joining the project, joining our discussions and sharing your creations with our community.

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Sepp Blatter

I'd like to invite you to a discussion regarding Sepp Blatter, please see the talk page. Regards IJA (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Mikhail Suprun, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page FSB (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. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line 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) 11:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Noize MC

The article Noize MC has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. reddogsix (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Kseniya Sobchak, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Nashi (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) 10:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

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.

European Recycling Company (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Charity

Sergei Udaltsov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to FSB

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Gadzhimurat Kamalov

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

2011–2012 Russian protests‎

User Greyhood is active again adding highly POV sections such as this [5]. Närking (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Advice on your interactions with Greyhood

I have seen your interactions with User:Greyhood on numerous articles, and comments such as this, accusing them of lying, and other generally combative behaviour and language towards Greyhood is getting too much. If I should see such behaviour from you again in the future, I won't hesitate to report you to WP:AE and ask for sanctions to be placed on you as per Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Standard_discretionary_sanctions. Calm down in your interactions with other editors with whom you may have opposing views with, and be more collegial in nature, otherwise you may find your ability to edit in this area on WP severely restricted. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 17:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If you are not an Admin (which you are not) I'd worry more about my own conflicts with others and your adoption of some sort of Russian-POV-luv rather than "warning" Malick78.

Agreed, Russavia himself does himself seem to be acting on the edge of what is acceptable at times.Malick78 (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kelly Marcel

The article Kelly Marcel has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable person, barely known for one event.

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. Speciate (talk) 05:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Putin

Sorry, I don't know how that happened. It must be my browser. Yonge&Egg (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, no prob.Malick78 (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Please add the citation to the article for your claim about his rank--Toddy1 (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Technically, it wasn't a claim. I was reverting somebody else's claim (which was unreferenced). However, I did put the ref in the edit summary.Malick78 (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

But please could you put the citation in the article. In 2 weeks time it will be very hard to find a citation in an edit summary. It will be too hard to achieve in 6 months time.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Incivility warning

Please remove/refactor your comment here. I agree with VM it is a personal attack. Please note those are not allowed, per WP:NPA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Of course you agree with him. I mentioned he'd been in the EEML. So were you. Perhaps your opinion is not as neutral as you think? I presume you have warned him about his personal attacks too? He says just above your link "I have been very critical of you... [i.e. me]", further down the page he calls me an "ass", and then here "a huge jerk". How can you differentiate between our 'personal attacks'? The fact is, I haven't engaged in name calling, he has. And calling my work a '3rd grade essay', or something like that. And of course as Radeksz, he tried to get a few of my articles deleted... along with the other EEML members. And you. I even had one reinstated because of you lot (Spieprzaj dziadu!). And here he's checking my sandbox. Is that him trying to avoid me? How about we all leave each other alone? Malick78 (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely with your specific and general approach to Piotr & Marek. These two have been caught and punished to a degree unknown to 99.9% of Wikipedia editors for breaking the rules, yet today they adopt the lie of being Wiki-perfectionists, interested only in Wiki rules. Once caught as criminals, today they pretend the role of police. Only their obsessession with their agenda and the eventual disinterest they create in honest Wikipedians encourages their desperate existence. Keep up the work and don't forget .

72.145.253.232 (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the encouragement. Interacting with them can be soul destroying... ;) Malick78 (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

and that is precisely their point. Read the archived talk pages at articles like Western Betrayal and see how the same problems with the article, (namely its one-sided Polish apologist POV) are repeatedly raised by dozens of independent or casual editors,but they are just worn down by the paranoid 24/7 policing by the article's owner and EEML colleagues. These guys have been punished, banned or deleted from Wikipedia so many times that they are simultaneously experts at wikilawyering and grossly obsessed with frustrating Wikipedia's broad ideas and specific guidelines. What purpose is a solemn and awe-inspiring 'incivility warning' from a defrocked admin only recently again punished by the ongoing EEML sanctions?....except of course to adopt the facade of wikiexpert and lamely intimidate those who dare question a EEML colleague? Try to keep PBS involved, the EEML are all terrified at such high ideals equally administered to all without bias as PBS tries to do. 184.36.234.102 (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again mystery stranger :) I'll bear that in mind. I agree with the fact that over the months, 2 or 3 editors have shouted down many passing editors. Btw, what's the thing with "only recently again punished" - what has happened? Can you send a link? Malick78 (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

How about this: if you're up for it we can talk here about developing the WB article without EEML harassment? The newest case against them is in the works and as Usual the EEML alone are providing the evidence against themselves, so we can I think ignore them and put energy towards the articles. I can't talk on the WB talk page anyway, (along with 99.9% of the world who have no wiki username).

Ok, to start: I think the WB article has a few broad overriding problems,

1. It is overwhelmingly Polish in POV. This can be remedied by either including all the numerous other non-Polish western betrayals in individual article sections, OR, if it makes sense (and it might) to keep the almost unilateral Polish perspective, then some counter arguments to the Polish explanation should be provided. For instance, the articles owner is hyper motivated to block pointing out Poland grabbed land after Munich because of the obvious hypocrisy which exists when Poland initially happily benefits from Munich but later blames the West for betraying them at Munich. There are numerous other things Poland does to further along it's own eventual disaster,such as not joining a Soviet defense pact it was offered (38 I think); which tend to show Poland was more involved in betraying itself than those who prefer to blame Britain and America are comfortable allowing on Wikipedia.

2. It is too long. It's a whiny laundry list of Polish complaints. The thinking is probably that sheer volume equals proof Of the concept.

3. There is no mention of how the WB concept was used so potently during the cold war by the Soviets and Warsaw pact governments to engender anti-western sentiment in their own people. Also, see the Christ of Europe article for how victimhood or martyrdom are a chosen self identity for Poland especially; western betrayal is an important subset of this national psychology.

...much more of course needs work, and maybe you want to start a new section here for this discussion? It is nice to talk freely about the article and not get dragged into the self hatred and pedantic banality of its owner's attacks, I hope we can work together.184.36.234.102 (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Others editing your talk page

Another editor has edited your talk page by removing my encouraging words to your efforts; this illustrates the point my original comments made. Thanks for your work! 01:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.253.232 (talk)

• Thx too for the heads up.Malick78 (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Western betrayal -- comments about things other than content.

If you want the article to improve then you have to stay focused on the content and not the behaviour of other users on the article talk pages.

Refactor this comment to remove the complaint about another editors behaviour on your talk page. The article talk pages are only for developing content. The comment, (intended or not) is an open invitation for a retort that has nothing to do with content. Take it to an ANI if you want to complain do not complain on an article talk page.

Also remove the comment you have placed after my blocking of the IP addresses. Again it is not anything to do with the development of the article and is yet another inappropriate inflammatory comment for an article talk page. -- PBS (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Warning

This is your only warning on this issue. If a comment by you on a users talk page is deleted by that user you may not revert it (See the guideline (WP:TALK). You have been doing this on user talk:Volunteer Marek. Now that you have been warned if you do it again it is likely to lead to administrative action. -- PBS (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI see this warning. -- PBS (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

See WP:BLANKING (and read the whole page) and Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments -- PBS (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

See also my edit that created an WP:ANI section that mentions you user name. -- PBS (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, WB edits refactored as per request. As for the above, I'll take note. One problem though is that a user's past behaviour and present behaviour should be visible to other editors in general. This, in the case of VM, is vital since he was once called Radeksz and was punished for being part of the EEML (do you know of it? Editors off-WP coordinating actions - such as AFD votes). I argued with him 2 (or so) years ago when he and other EEML editors nominated certain articles, which I had started, for deletion. Then after his punishment he changed his name, and once again - as VM - I have come across him and had problems. It took me a while to realise he was one and the same editor who I'd clashed with before. If it'd been easier to know about his previous behaviour, I'd have been less at a disadvantage. Hence my dislike of him deleting my posts (and those of others). It smacks of someone covering their tracks.
• Oh, and sorry to bore you with all this :) Malick78 (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said above alleged problems about user behaviour should be dealt with at ANI not on the talk page of articles. I did not ask you to strike out your comments I asked you to remove them [before there is a response making it necessary just to strike them out so that other editors responses to your comments make sense]. -- PBS (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood what you exactly meant by 'refactor'. As for comments... will you ask VM to remove his comments of a similar type? Like calling me a 'huge jerk'?Malick78 (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

No. This is a request to remove the two comments you placed on the page since I took administrative action to dampen down this edit war. -- PBS (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Article Development at Western Betrayal

I was contacted by a colleague in Australia about this recently delivered paper: http://pubapps.uws.edu.au/events_diary/event.php?id=2194 It Is a good source by an academic expert on the myth of WB and importantly the categorisation as 'myth' is in itself important vis-a-vis the determined effort by the articles owner to portray WB as fact. Here's Alger Hiss saying much the same thing: https://files.nyu.edu/th15/public/yaltamyths.html Also there is a book by Athan Theoharis called the 'Yalta Myth' or Munich Myth, if it can be found it too provides a counetrbalance and good explanation to those who choose to blame the entirety of their problems on Anglo-American betrayal. Btw for betrayal to occur doesn't there first have to be some obligation? What obligation did anyone ever have to Poland which wasn't satisfied by declaring war? There are several other good sources, but let me know what you think. We can compose a good update to the WB article free from EEML hectoring here if you agree. Also, see my comments above where I talk about 3 general problems with the WB article. I hope we can make it more worthy of this encyclopedia and a bit less of a propaganda piece. . You've just recently overcome a fierce EEML attack so congratulations! But they are watching this talk page and you closely; I would expect the same two ringleaders to keep up their campaign of disruption and keep trying to silence their critics, So check for deletions often here or anywhere else you visit on wiki. They may switch to using one of their colleagues, cohorts or socks against you but these are already documented so just react professionally. I appreciate your serious interest in Wikpedia and hope you will want to work a bit on the WB article. 184.36.234.102 (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, in general I'm happy to work on WB but I should say now that my time is limited (I also have to fight POV-pushers on the Putin article, for instance ;) ) - so, if you could do the legwork I'll happily facilitate in any other way I can. I think that if we have the refs then the additions to the text you discuss are all feasible. I think the monograph is perhaps not useful till it's published properly, but the Hiss bit is interesting. In fact, it's mention of China is perhaps the best part - and could be used to extend the article to cover why China felt aggrieved (and may suggest to other editors that Poland shouldn't be the main focus). Malick78 (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, well I only have a few hours a week here and there to contribute, maybe some off time at work, maybe time after the kids are in bed, maybe when I'm waiting in airports etc... etc... How about I find some sources/quotes and you can weave them into the article if you think they're useful?

So maybe a start is the fact that WB is more properly seen as a political soundbite than it is an indisputable fact, for instance:

1. Athan Theoharis - arguably the premier AngloAmerican expert on this topic, says WB was advanced in the West at least in part for partisan political reasons in the height of the Cold War as a way to assign blame for the growing Soviet threat. An example are the politicians who "Sought to recapture the Polish-American vote By regularly assailing the Yalta Betrayal of Poland" in Chicago with its large Polish community.

P.66. The Yalta Myths: an issue in US Politics, 1945-1945, by Athan Theoharis.

He cites Chicago newspaper articles and Republican Party literature. This book has lots to say that contradicts the Polish-victimhood mantra of the current WB article and is partially available on Google Books. (everything I put in quotes is a direct quote from the named source) I'll try posting a link but it might be easier to search for the quote directly on the oogle books site or just regular google.

http://books.google.com/books?id=JmN3AAAAMAAJ&q=Betrayal#search_anchor

2. "..the bitter feelings of Polish-Americans" were vocal and behind political appeals such as Arguing the West and the "United Nations betrayed" Poland. Words spoken in the US Congress. P. 114, same source. (hmmmm...bitter Polish Americans.....)

3. P.29, same Theoharis source; the allegation of the western allies betraying Poland was used by UN opponents in a call to "reappraise the US commitment to the United Nations." ---

4. "American conservatives see the Yalta conference as a betrayal of Poland AND CHINA.". . . Goes towards both the use of WB as a political view held by one side in a multisided partisan debate and the fact that WB is used for a lot more than simply referring to Polands complaints. . .

From The Oxford Companion to US History, online at

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Yalta_Conference.aspx#3 ... ...

5. Same Oxford source, The western betrayal complainers "helped stimulate the excesses of the McCarthy era."

alright, enough for now. I will keep adding quotes and sources, maybe you will be able to use some of them? If PBS goes ahead with the line-by-line review of the article he suggested, whatever gets added will ideally include direct quotes or indisputable summaries of strong sources. Thanks for your interest and please don't get too caught up in all the bureaucratic wrangling the article's owner prosecutes onto everyone posting things she doesn't like!

184.36.234.102 (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Where to aim?

The available literature on the subject suggests 4 broad areas belonging in the article which are currently absent'

1. WB as but one of several betrayals on the Polish people, in terms of Polish weltenschaung widely adopted in the 20th century. A discussion of WB as part of an overall Polish self-mythology in part enunciated elsewhere at Christ of Europe. The victimhood and martyrdom identities are adopted/encouraged.

2, WB as a political catchphrase used by the West, the Poles, other EE nations and ths Soviets for various and opposing meanings/purposes esp. In the Cold War.

3. WB as a frequent phrase implying AngloAmerican blame for national failures everywhere, e.g. Googling WB today reveals Kurdistan(!), not Poland, is the loudest and most recent victim of this apparently frequent western policy. China is another, the Jews are another, and many others.

4. Specific arguments that the idea of WB is simply wrong, the historians, statesmen etc. who argue there was no betrayal, no duty to Poland/EE or that Poland betrayed itself.

So all the sources I find will likely fit I into one of the four areas....most of the sources I list above seem to it into area 2, WB used as a partisan political concept. More later184.36.234.102 (talk) 05:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)