User talk:PatGallacher

See /Archive1.

Proposed deletion of Talk show (disambiguation)

The article Talk show (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article seams to posses little or no merit.

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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TucsonDavid (talk) 08:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk show (disambiguation)

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 Talk show (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), 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. 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. TucsonDavid (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia - Warning

You recently accussed me of personal attacks on other editors, reading through your talk page is quite frightening for me as i can see a severe history of problems in almost every department for yourself, however, this did not affect your confidence to come bumbling down to my talk page as if your own discussion page didn't exist. Please don't ever vandalise my talk page again or we may have to take this further and i doubt your talk page quite frankly has the room anyway. Thank you for your comments but if you again try to accuse me of any false insults under the umbrella of political correctness this will have to be take further. Reaper7 (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I believe that in the course of your unsourced ramblings on Talk:Kate Middleton you did make unwarranted attacks on other editors, so I believe that the level 1 warning I placed on your talk page was legitmate, but I won't take things any further at present. PatGallacher (talk) 12:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You really are hideously sanctimonious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.37.244 (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

See, I told you were hideously sanctimonious. Get a fucking brain of your own instead of using a template that makes you sound like an idiot. "Please don't attack TwatGallacher by TwatGallacher".

Stop Stalking me

Stop stalking me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.71.160 (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Papal Titles

"I saw it claimed that some Italian titles were awarded by the Pope and are therefore still valid regardless of the view of the Italian government."

I think you are slightly misunderstanding. The Pope created many Papal title on Italians (and others) before the creation of Italy and those titles being Papal survive and continue to be recognised by the Vatican (indeed in occasionally still settles disputes/succession) As to Papal recognition of titles created by the various Kingdoms of Italy I can't say what the modern recognition is - thought they certainly were recognised pre '46. Garlicplanting (talk) 10:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Archibald Strachan

The article Archibald Strachan has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia: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. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 21:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Archibald Strachan

The article Archibald Strachan has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia: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. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 21:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, PatGallacher. You have new messages at Tofutwitch11's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 21:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Manchester Martyrs

Thanks Pat, For the heads up. I find it amusing you use the word attack as that was one of my points in my piece, when is an "attack" an "event"? I mean you just voiced an opinion that I attacked editors who let's say don't shed a tear at images showing the body parts of dead British soldiers lining the streets of Northern Ireland over the past 40 years. But then at the same time show rabid Islamaphobia at the thoughts of Jihadists launching terrorists attacks on "Christian" Europeans. The bottom line is what you call an attack I call fair criticism of inherent bias in the editorialship of this website and it's clear partisan attitude towards the Troubles. Nearly every article makes the point that the so-called "men of violence" were only doing it to free Ireland of British rule. Seems to me that Al Queda is only trying to do the same and free Muslims from Western control. Whiff of hypocrisy in the air?

Your message has a twinge of WP:IDL because rather than refute me you just gave it the old ad hominem that I am attacker of virtue. If you call my criticism an attack then sorry you need to get a thicker skin if you want to work on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.148.12 (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

TB Tofutwitch11

Hello, PatGallacher. You have new messages at Tofutwitch11's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 02:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

spencer

Hi pat, whats going on at the spencer article? There is a thread at the BLPN here - your insider comments would be appreciated, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I see you are blocked, feel free to comment here and I will move your comments to the BLPN for you. Or just wait, I have removed the disputed content anyways, it was uncited, pretty contentious anyways imo. Off2riorob (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, now that somebody has explained that they do have legitimate concerns about the content of this article I'll give them the benefit of the doubt at present, I realise this is a BLP, but this sort of thing can be difficult to distinguish from vandalism. You will see that I did appeal to however it was to explain their changes on the IP's talk page. PatGallacher (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for explaining. There is a pattern of similar additions emerging from the dynamic range that added it there, thanks for commenting. Off2riorob (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violation of 1RR at 1948 Palestinian exodus. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this was a mistake on my part, I didn't realise that rejecting dubious changes using reviewer status was itself covered by the 1RR, although this sort of issue might be explained more clearly. However I'm not going to make a fuss over a 24-hour block. PatGallacher (talk)

Well I'll unblock you if you agree to self-revert. The article is a bit of a mess so I apologize, I've chosen to be heavy-handed. And the edit didn't look dubious to me. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This is interesting. I was about to reject the same dubious change using reviewer status, having previously, like Pat, made a revert on this article. His act preempted me, otherwise I might have been in the same situation. I think there is a degree of ambiguity/unclarity about such edits, which needs to be resolved explicitly. The specific edit, by the way, is certainly dubious, rejecting as false the description of the pictures on Commons. RolandR (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not a get out of a revert condition to claim you were acting as a reviewer, you would have a case if is was a unmitigated BLP violation or very clear vandalism, which this doesn't seem to be, best is if there is a restriction allow uninvolved users to review. Off2riorob (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Guys, you do realize that there's a clause that says "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty" (emphasis mine), right? I'm prepared to unblock. T. Canens (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, its there bold as brass on the template. Yes , clearly there was no violation and I support unblock. Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll unblock. For future reference, everyone, you can always revert my decision when I'm not around if there's consensus like this; no need to stand on process. I totally missed that clause about IP edits; it's rather buried in the text. My apologies to Pat. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Wording tweaks on the royal wedding

Hi there-

I opened a discussion on the wording tweaks you reverted here. Not trying to start an edit fight or push an agenda re: the content, I just think the sentences as written are poorly constructed. --Jfruh (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mariya Muzychuk

The article Mariya Muzychuk has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia: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. Kudpung (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

"rejected"?

Sorry, but who are you exactly to be "rejecting" my contributions? HiramEsther (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I have now explained this on the article's talk page. PatGallacher (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

My message

I just thought you would like to know,I have given you a WARNING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.199.169 (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bob Wellings

The article Bob Wellings has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia: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. ϢereSpielChequers 00:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Bobby Farrell

Hi PatGallacher

You removed the {{Notability}} tag from the above-captioned article with the sole explanation that it was "a joke". I have replaced it. The current article doesn't establish notability, and my own media search was unable to find significant coverage. If you wish to remove it again, please provide more substantive commentary on why the tag is inapplicable on the article's talk page.

^Bongo_matic 17:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Savannah Phillips

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 Savannah Phillips 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, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), 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. 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. ttonyb (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

On a related note: What's your source for the child's name? I can't find one! ✝DBD 22:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding template "Don't template the regulars" to inform user

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humor. Best wishes. Finn Rindahl (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Referring to your recent edit at User_talk:Scrivener-uki, have a nice day.

LOL Did you think this was a vandal 'commenting' on Tommy's court performance? The Oriffice (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Israeli settlement - Jewish settlement

Could you explain me in what 'Jewish settlement' is partisan ? Noisetier (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you get my message ? I don't understand what you see as 'partisan' in 'Jewish settlement'. Noisetier (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Warning

Do you need to warn someone for an obvious mistake? You should of just undone it and moved on.

It did look like vandalism, but if it was an honest mistake fair enough. PatGallacher (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Well it was, why would I vandalize an article when ive made 1,787 edits. By the looks over it you've upset a lot over people on here. I hope I don't come across you again. Baldboris99 (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Heather Mills (journalist) for deletion

The article Heather Mills (journalist) is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Mills (journalist) 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. Rob (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Moving William the Lion

Pat, can I ask that the article William the Lion be moved back to its location. I will do this myself, but it is better that you do it. It was stable at that location. If you choose not to respect a 64 month name as stable it may work for your own POV in this particular case, but you'll find that the precedent undermines later positions you take AND creates instability in Wikipedia in general. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

To my mind a move which was made without proper discussion around 6 months ago does not trump the most recent formal move discussion. PatGallacher (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

See WP:BRD and WP:SILENCE. The current name is the established now, having been established for well over the normal time. A RM three years ago only questionably close when we had different guidelines is irrelevant. You are experienced enough to know that once a page is at a location for 1 month or longer, it is generally recognized as the new default location. Transgressing this Wikipedia etiquette is short-sighted. Though it may benefit your position here, it won't benefit others later and will cause a break-down of a custom that helps neutralize article instability. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I have re-moved the article to William the Lion and protected it for a week in the hope of preventing a move war. I realise this is the "wrong" version from you point of view but it is clear that the alternative is currently controversial and needs to go through WP:RM. Similar notes sent to others involved. Regards, Ben MacDui 11:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Twelve apostles

Category:Twelve apostles, 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Dudimose

I noticed that you reverted my redirect to Dedumose II. I just wanted to point out that these people are one and the same. The spelling Dusimose is outdated and the article did not include the latest research by scholars such as Ryholt and Bennett. But I see your point. I did a quick search and Dudimose is referred to in other articles (with mistakes I think?) Not sure where to go to discuss how to clean this up. --AnnekeBart (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

After looking at it again, I still think the redirect is the way to go. The king is equated with Dedumose II. The original Dudimose article is not well written, and not well referenced. The only source mentioned is Rohl, which is considered fringe. The information about Dedumose's identfication with Tutimaios is mentioned in the Dedumose II article. And this is not generally accepted by Egyptologists. I honestly see no justification keeping the old article around. --AnnekeBart (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Revert

You just participated in an edit war without using the talk page with an edit summary saying "it looks like" even though it really is objectionable. Portions of it might be acceptable but you are now part of the problem.Cptnono (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The previous edit which I reverted did not make any reference to the talk page either. PatGallacher (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

So? There actually is a discussion. Just say you made a mistake and we can forget about it.Cptnono (talk) 12:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you going out of your way to be disruptive and/or upset that someone brought up your mistake? There is a talk page that has been used by other editors besides you and the now blocked editor. Further reverts on your part will lead to a request to have you blocked from the topic area since you are making the situation worse. You also reverted something that has support on the talk page so learn to use it.Cptnono (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up: I planned on filing an ANIt o get you notified of the arbitration case. You are already aware of it from the block situation awhile back. No more shenanigans. If you are going to refuse to use the talk page and make reverts that support edits from a disruptive editor then I will be glad to see you gone from the topic. Please just use the talk page since most established editors are able to figure it out.Cptnono (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrong person...

You sent a message to this IP stating than an article had been edited badly. Seems like a silly thing to do as what were the chances of the message reaching the correct person? I was just looking something up and received a very rude message from you, rather glad the person it was aimed at didn't get it to be honest. If you really do think that's the way to tell someone they are doing something wrong, then it explains all the negative comments on this page. 212.183.128.3 (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Beau James

Concerning this edit of yours: please see WP:EGG, and the discussion on my talk page concerning piped links. "Year in film" piped links for dates are no longer favoured. See this talk page for further details, and if still in doubt, consult Users Millahnna and IllaZilla. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Gail Sheridan

Just a courtesy call to say that I have started a discussion on whether the page should be deleted. It has gone straight to afd because she was previously deleted (and redirected to Tommy) way back in 2004. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edit to The Chrysalids

Just thought I'd drop you a note regarding this edit you made, with the edit summary “don’t think this is crucial”. Personally, I think these concise sentences provide a useful and interesting context for understanding this book; for example, the fact that this work precedes Midwich Cuckoos, in which he further develops the telepathy theme. The sentences may not be “crucial”, but I would like to make a case for their inclusion. I was tempted simply to revert your change, with a terse edit summary, but I always prefer to act in co-operation with other experienced editors. Would you agree to reverting your change and putting back this insight into the context of this book within the author's body of work? Sincerely, — Hebrides (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is crucial enough to go into the intro, but feel free to expand at the point it is. PatGallacher (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Caning in Malaysia

Amnesty International is certainly a reliable source for what Amnesty International thinks, but that doesn't mean its statements have to be taken as incontrovertible objective truth. It is a pressure group after all, not a neutral observer. I didn't remove anything they said, I merely made it more clear that this is what they allege, and others may or may not agree. I think my version is therefore more NPOV. -- Alarics (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bahareh Hedayat

The article Bahareh Hedayat has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Links are to possible COI sources. Subject not Notable

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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Enfcer (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Myra Taylor

I've created a page for a Kansas City based Jazz singer also named Myra Taylor. She is now 94 and has had an 80 year career in music, including number 1 songs. At the moment, she is at Myra Taylor (Jazz singer) and would like to move her to Myra Taylor, and move Myra Taylor to Myra Taylor (screenwriter), if that is OK. This one has been challenged for notability since 2007. Please let me know if you have any objections. Thanks. K8 fan (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Talha Ahsan

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

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

A tag has been placed on Talha Ahsan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: 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 you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} at the top of the article, immediately below the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate), and providing your reasons for contesting on the article's talk page, 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. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

You may want to read the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. ► Wireless Keyboard ◄. 21:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, you might be interested in joining the Afd on Emilia Carr. I personally believe it is Keep for this in the very least a Weak Keep. But the more opinions the better.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Re:User 194.60.38.10‎

I'm assuming this is the MP's or their staff. Is it enough to remind of BLP or should we ban like USA Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The Killing of Sister George‎

The Bowmans? Apart from being a parody of The Archers, there's nothing else in common. Why does this need to be here when we don't list other parodies? Senseless, in my opinion. Rodhullandemu 00:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC),

As far as I am aware these are the only 2 parodies of this incident. do you know of any more? So there is a serious connection between them. It might be different if we were trying to list all the parodies of something which has been parodied several times. Also, in context the killing of Grace Archer was important in the history of British popular culture, although now only half-remembered. PatGallacher (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I take your point but I'm not convinced that The Bowmans belongs in this article, since it surely is more closely connected with The Archers itself, and that is the linking problem. Fair enough to link it from The Archers, but here, I see it as being off-topic. If there were more examples that I could point to right now, there would be scope to have an article in its own right, but with only a handful at best, I think they should descend topically from "The Archers" and not cross unnecessary boundaries. But then, what is my opinion worth any more? Rodhullandemu 01:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dorothy Bain

The article Dorothy Bain has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Having prosecuted one notable case does not one notable make.

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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, PatGallacher. You have new messages at Boing! said Zebedee's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just a note, it might have been easier to just explain to him what he did and why instead of templating him. This is a very useful essay. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 17:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Cleopatra (1963 film)

"It's interesting" is not a reason to put it back in. It's unsourced WP:OR that's been there for over a year. Chainsawing a huge chunk of unsourced-ness isn't harmful. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Daniel O'Donnell

I really do think the Daniel O'Donnell should be protected or semi-protected due to the nature of his personality and image. I'm not sure how to do this, I'd be grateful if you could do it on my behalf! --ColmanHuge (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're asking me. You can raise this at Wikipedia:requests for page protection if you like. However, looking at the page history, there has only been a handful of reverts due to vandalism in the past month, nothing like the level which would be needed to justify even semi-protection. The nature of his personality and image is irrelevant. PatGallacher (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Patrick Meehan

If you have valid references then they must be cited. Otherwise OR is deleted. If the links are not available online then as much information should be provided as possible, i.e. ISBN#, pages, editor, publisher, etc. as per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. - are you aware that there is apparent vandalism ("im trying to get mcso wikipedia better == Martin County Sheriff IMtrying to get it started it up if you will help me i would appricate it") at the top of this page? I'll leave it to you to decide if you want to remove it rather than taking that liberty myself. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Template substitution

Hello. Please do not substitute article maintenance templates (see [1]) as it creates a lot of junk in the wikicode. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

My Dirty Username

Hello Pat after i saw this message i decided to review the username policy again and here is why i think im keeping it and if you prove me wrong i'll gladly ask for a change in username.

Reason 1:Promotional Username-this would not apply to me because my name is not promoting a group,website,company or product.

Reason 2:Offensive Usernames-My username is not directed at any kind of specific person,Country or Culture and editors shouldn't worry about the name of the person who edited the article they shoul only be worried about correcting mistakes, adding new info or ending vandalism.

Reason 3:Disruptive Usernames-my username is not a troll on Wikipedia or any user,it is not intended for disruption as users should not worry only admins and the words Jiggle Me Sacks are not Profanity because if i wanted something worse i could have put JiggleMeBalls.

Reason 4:Misleading Usernames-my username does not impersonate other people nor does it include an ip address or timestamps,and in now way does it mislead people to think i am higher than wikipedia or any of its users or supporters.

and once again if you prove me wrong i'll admit defeat and ask for a name change

Have a Good Day — Preceding unsigned comment added by JiggleMeSacks (talk • contribs) 22:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes’’’. cooldenny (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You left this on my talk page:

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at You're at it again, this is only likely to result in a longer block., you may be blocked from editing without further notice. PatGallacher (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

What are you referring to? Please provide details or escalate this to a higher level. Wikipedia is NOT about random warnings without support. You and your buddies need to back off unless you are going to play by the rules of the game! Is this how you play in the real world of cops? 216.189.209.130 (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)216.189.209.130

• What is VANDALISM? See: Wikipedia:Vandalism

Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. 216.189.209.130 (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)216.189.209.130

The TALK section, based on people who actually follow such things, is the appropriate area for discussions of topics.

If you can prove me wrong in anything I write, I will gladly retract my comments, however you can not stifle honest dialog. Look up the definition of vandalism before you continue you claims. 216.189.209.130 (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)216.189.209.130

Proposed deletion of Bryan Simpson

The article Bryan Simpson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

It fails notability (WP:N) for living persons (WP:BIO) is not sourced

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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — VikingViolinist | Talk 02:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

(delete section - see talk)

I was just about to do that. Good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Motoroilforblood (talk • contribs) 15:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

James IV

Thank you for fleshing out the fictional depictions section in the article about James IV of Scotland. Could you also add additional depictions to James V? Dimadick (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Colin Beattie

The article Colin Beattie has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia: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. Cind.amuse 21:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Roderick Campbell

The article Roderick Campbell has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia: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. joe decker^{talk to me} 21:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jean Urquhart

The article Jean Urquhart has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia: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. Eeekster (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Chic Brodie (politician)

The article Chic Brodie (politician) has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia: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. Tassedethe (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Helena Bonham Carter

PatGallacher, I noticed that you removed content that I had added about Carter's post-childbirth incontinence. A targeted search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=JW5&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22problems+after+having+a+baby+and+bladder+control+is+minimal%22+%22helena+bonham+carter%22+-thelondonpaper+-dailydiapers&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=) yielded more than a hundred references to this quotation outside of the The London Paper. Considering that this condition is reality for many women after childbirth (as evidenced by Wikipedia's own articles), it seems fair to me to include this information about her personal life. However, you appear to be a senior editor, so perhaps you might be able to explain your reasoning to the contrary.KlappCK (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not a "senior editor". I am cautious about including this in a BLP, we would need a clear reference that she has gone public about this. PatGallacher (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

PatGallacher, I assume you are referring to [BLP] guidelines, but to which one in particular are your referring? As you've had thousands of edits (kinda' what I meant by "senior"), I was hoping you might be able to educate me on some content guidelines. There is similar content about the personal life of Mary Lou Retton, so I am unclear as to whether or not this material is fair game. Are you saying that one source is up to Wikipedia standards and the other is not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klappck (talk • contribs) 14:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

changing an article to a redirect

Greetings. Here you changed an article to a redirect and referred people to the talk page, where there is only one comment. I don't think this is sufficient discussion so I reverted you, fyi. Shootbamboo (talk) 02:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ruth Davidson

So, is she notable for being a lesbian? I don't remember Isobel Fraser introducing her as "... Ruth Davidson, lesbian Scottish Conservative MSP ...". Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, she is only the 2nd lesbian to be elected to the Scottish Parliament. However I don't see how we draw the line between being notable for being a lesbian and being a lesbian. PatGallacher (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Second Karaite community

In this edit you imply that there is another large Karaite community in the world. Where? Debresser (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

There appear to be significant communities of Karaites in USA, ex-USSR, Turkey. Israel may well have the world's largest, but it would help to have a clear source. PatGallacher (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I am really not an expert. I know about the Israeli Karaite community. There are Karaites in the Crimea as well, historically, but I doubt whether they are organised into any sort of a community. I'll try to look around at the karaite websites, and if needed, will adjust the text of the article accordingly. Debresser (talk) 08:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

See Karaites#Karaite_Judaism_by_region that there are various Karaite communities. I also found quite a few English karaite websites, including one of Karaite Jews of America. Nevertheless, the resulting edit was a surprising one. See the editsummary for an explanation. Debresser (talk) 08:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Patrick Meehan (producer) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Patrick Meehan (producer) 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/Patrick Meehan (producer) 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. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

PQ 17

Hello Pat
I notice you put an expand tag on Convoy PQ 17; I’ve opened a discussion here about it. Was there anything in particular from the Russian article that caught your eye? Xyl 54 (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

After Midnight (1990 film)

Hey, I found After Midnight (1990 film) while stub sorting. What do you think of the Wikiproject and stub category I put it in? --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 04:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Christopher Shale for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christopher Shale 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/Christopher Shale 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. GiantSnowman 20:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hot Asphalt

A tag has been placed on Hot Asphalt, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

unremarkable song

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

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. Reichsfürst (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Tristane Banon

Hi Pat,

Why did you blank content from Tristane Banon without asking for consensus at the Talk page. Why did you create a fork without first seeking consensus on the Talk page. Please reply on the Banon Talk page Talk:Tristane_Banon#Sexual_assault_allegation_.27Main_article.27_fork here.

Didn't you also enquire at the DSK page? The consensus there was plainly no. Why did you proceed, anyway? FightingMac (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Dominique Strauss-Kahn Tristane Banon alleged sexual assault for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dominique Strauss-Kahn Tristane Banon alleged sexual assault 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/Dominique Strauss-Kahn Tristane Banon alleged sexual assault 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. Off2riorob (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Sheridan v News International

If we claim it was lies and the conviction is overturned Wikipedia could be in trouble for libel. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That could apply to any court case about the conviction of a living person. Loads of media outlets have now said that he told lies in the first civil trial. PatGallacher (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of After Midnight (1990 film)

The article After Midnight (1990 film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No reason for notability given, no sources to verify notability, as per WP:NF. Just existing is not a reason to include.

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. Cerejota (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

discussion

is on the talk page or the BLP noticeboard - please join in the discussion and wait for consensus to clarify - please do not re-add original research, as in claims of waiving anonymity, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Hot Asphalt for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hot Asphalt 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/Hot Asphalt 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. Cerejota (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2011 Helensburgh fire

The article 2011 Helensburgh fire has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no evidence that it meets the notability criteria for alleged murders

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. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 00:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of 2011 Helensburgh fire for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2011 Helensburgh fire 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/2011 Helensburgh fire 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. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 11:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The Corn Is Green

I reverted your removal of the {{unreferenced}} tag as the article is unreferenced. I am currently near the end of assessing over 2,500 unassessed theatre articles, this was not "drive by tagging". I plan to return to those articles of mid and high importance, but it will probably take a year or so. Currently 39% of all theatre articles require attention. You can see the list here.[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Layla Ibrahim

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 Layla Ibrahim 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". 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. Bgwhite (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Andyscotlandlewis

Hi perhaps you'd like to tell me why you deleted my edit to the William Wallace article??? Why do you tink my additions aren't helpful??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.167.108.215 (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

An hysterical message like this is unlikely to get you the sort of response you desire. Your edits are not helpful, they are poorly-written, and your use of sources is, at best, questionable. Learn to become a better editor, and you will receive the respect you desire. By the way, do not edit as an IP, either, if you want to be taken seriously. As you have an account, use it. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Thomas Docherty (politician)

The article Thomas Docherty (politician) 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 take offense. 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. ISTB351 (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Genocides in history

Please see Talk:Genocides in history-- PBS (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hugh Blaker

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 Hugh Blaker 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". 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. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 22:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a wee note

In case your edit-comment query was addressed to me, your edit here [3] is correct. I had come to Abraham from another page, and found that it was a totally unreadable mess, which is why I reverted your previous edit, not because I disagreed with you about the date order. Regards, --NSH001 (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

thanks

Thank you.Caledoniankilt (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kendra Drider

The article Kendra Drider has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Candidates for political office usually do not get an article, especially "fringe" candidates.

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. Bgwhite (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

George VI

Hi, as you will no doubt notice, I have made a new move request since the previous one was not formulated properly. You will probably want to record your position in the new section. --Kotniski (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Conrad Murray trial is online here (California time I think)

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2011/09/live-stream-dr-conrad-murray-trial-michael-jackson-s-death-watch-it-here-live

Proposed deletion of José Alberto Montes

The article José Alberto Montes 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Minor edit

Software rollbacks are always marked as minor for some reason. Next, read WP:DTTR. And that section on Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy was written by a banned user.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That is why rollback should not be used for changes which might seem at all controversial. If it was written by a banned user this ought to be clearly explained. PatGallacher (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

move/merge discussion

Hi - * - Talk:Adams family abuse allegations#Nov 2011 - move/split discussion - Off2riorob (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

William Wallace article

Perhaps you would like to help me edit his ancestry It is believed that William Wallace`s ancestor Richard wallace a (norman-breton kinght) came to scotland inthe 1130s in the sevice of walter Fitzalan who had been apointed stewart by King David I and settledin ayrshire. There are sevral ayrshire Wallace seals attached to the Ragman Rolls but none of theme display a lion(the traditional arms asociated with Wallace)used are a Saltire,cross paty and a fleur de lys William Wallace was prbably descended from one of Richard`s sons which married into local scottish land ownig familis Hence Wallace and his scoto-norman ancestors would hane been well acqueinted with Gailic,French,Latin,Greek,and possibly an early form of Scots.[1] plase help me thanks again!!--Highlandjacobite (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)--Highlandjacobite (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is 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.

Regia Marina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Regina Maria

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested Move for "Darius the Great"

• (Discuss) – Darius the Great → Darius I Kauffner (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Britannica Party for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Britannica Party 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/Britannica Party 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.Template:Z81 Fences&Windows 21:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Britons not British

I can understand your misconception about the issue on Boudicea but the Britons were a completely different race and ethnicity to "British", which is not a historically correct term in this case to describe them, as it only referred to the citizens of the United Kingdom after 1707 following the Act of Union, when Scotland was annexed. Sheodred (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Wallace Sword, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lenticular (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

my movements

Thank you for your message on my talk page, I will open discussion and have good reasons in the future when it comes to my edits. Cheers, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Pope Joan

I must humbly request something. You will either provide a citation for changing the commonly used term "Dark Ages", by showing where it is published "that scholars no longer use the term"... or else leave the wording as-is. I have compromised by editing it to "the early 8th century A.D." - and please do not tell me scholars no longer use "A.D." because it is still used... as is "Dark Ages". I'm beginning to see a pattern of attempted ownership of this article. I truly hope that is not the case. Djathinkimacowboy 06:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems something weird is guarding that article. I have requested a fresh eye on this. I'm tired of working to correct the grammar that would shame a grade school dropout, only to have it reverted by you or that other editor. Djathinkimacowboy 22:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the article Dark Ages (historiography) is a reasonable starting point for this issue. I do not intend to revert legitimate attempts to improve the grammar. I suggest further discussion should continue at the talk page for Pope Joan. PatGallacher (talk) 23:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Only popping by to concur. It would have been useful for you to have done that in the first place. Djathinkimacowboy 23:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I will not come here to warn you again. Pat, you seem to have a problem with my adding the specific century this legend is said to take place. Here[[4]] you seem to me to be engaged in edit warring. I will ask you to stop until you can find a citation that places the legend outside the early 9th century A.D. You do not own this article. It seems to me you are trying to dictate exactly what words can and cannot be used in editing there, and that is wrong of you. Please read the talk[5], and be so kind as to communicate there. Djathinkimacowboy 02:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I have responded to this at Talk:Pope Joan. PatGallacher (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. here[6] Djathinkimacowboy 21:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Pope Joan

Pat, just because I made a critical comment on the talk page doesn't mean you should have gone and reverted again. The whole point is that it's time to stop reverting each other and discuss the issue until we can reach consensus. There's no hurry to fix the article--no harm is being done if that phrase stays in there for a few more days while we sort out the details. I very intentionally only left a message on talk, rather than actually editing the article, to keep this as a discussion, not an edit war. You've made 5 reverts to the article in the past 2 days, and though you've never crossed 3RR, you're definitely coming very close to doing so, and to meeting the general definition of edit-warring. Please just focus on discussion now, and once a consensus is clear, then make whatever changes need to be made. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The 5 edits were spread out over a period of over 4 days, but that may be nit-picking or wikilawyering. However I will hold my fire for the moment. PatGallacher (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Betty Henderson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The 39 Steps (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) 10:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jack Hanbury

The article Jack Hanbury has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

BLP sourced only to IMDb. Also, no real evidence of notability.

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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Betty Henderson

The article Betty Henderson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

BLP sourced only to IMDb; no evidence of notability.

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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of The Same Sky for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Same Sky 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/The Same Sky 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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Helen Ford for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Helen Ford 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/Helen Ford 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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of José Alberto Montes

The article José Alberto Montes has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:POLITICIAN.

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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Helen Ryan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Helen Ryan 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/Helen Ryan 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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Prince Paul Philippe of Romania

Dear PatGallacher, I saw you have undone my changes on HRH Prince Paul of Romania Wikipedia page. I am the Executive Assistant of HRH Prince Paul of Romania and my name is Carmen Stefan. The changes I have made are all based on documents and references that we are providing, in order to clear all the false information on HRH Prince Paul of Romania and his family. The information I have introduced has not harmed anyone and are completely neutral. Because this is my first day on Wikipedia, I hope I have not offended you by contacting you directly and I could use your help and support. Best regards, Carmen Stefan Executive Assistant HRH Prince Paul of Romania E-mail: paulofromania@gmail.com Website: www.princepaulofromania.ro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanmarin07 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you start by reading Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. PatGallacher (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

About that "Romanian Orthodox Christians" category - no, we don't (yet) have hard evidence for it, but consider the following facts. The preponderance of Romanians (and of Russians, which his mother was) are Orthodox. His grandfather was definitely Orthodox, while his father was buried on the grounds of an Orthodox monastery. We also know for a fact that he married in an Orthodox ceremony and baptized his son as an Orthodox. He has met with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople, and he spent Christmas Eve with Patriarch Daniel of Romania at the latter's official residence. And the IP who is probably closely connected to him confirmed for me the prince's religion. As for the Jesuit school, he has said his father sent him there for the "tough" education.

So no, we don't have something citable, and I can understand keeping the category out until we do. But there does seem a 99%+ probability that he is in fact Orthodox. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

I kindly ask you to remove the name "Paul Lambrino"; you are violating Wikipedia's guidelines. There are NO legitimate or major "English" language sources which refer to HRH Prince Paul as "Paul Lambrino". The sources in the Romanian media which were cited earlier cannot be considered as legitimate as they in ONE single article refer to him with various names (i.e., Paul of Romania, Prince Paul, Paul Lambrino, Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern"). In one article the journalist even wrote that he "officially" was "Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern", albeit there was not reference as to how the latter was his official name, I can simply strongly suspect the journalist used Wikipedia as a source!!! Do you realise the importance of the matter? Neither his Romanian nor his British passport state the name "Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern".

Furthermore, in the articles you cited are virulent towards Prince Paul (pls read the content), therefore they cannot be viewed as legitimate and reliable sources as per Wikipedia's own guidelines!!! In one he is even called "self-styled" "Prince of Romania". His British passport states that the holder is HRH Prince Paul of Romania, how can he be "self-styled" if a government recognises him as such? The content to the article goes to bias against Prince Paul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.225.193 (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not particularly hostile towards this person, I'm inclined to think his father and grandmother were badly treated by the Romanian authorities, but that does not justify bending the stick the other way. Raise any issues on the article's talk page. PatGallacher (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

I shall raise my issues immediately on the article's page.

Please beware of the language you use which goes for bias against HRH Prince Paul of Romania. "I am not particularly hostile", but you are hostile indeed? "I'm inclined to think his father and grandmother were badly treated..."; that is simply not relevant here. Your subjective opinion does not matter, it is a matter of analysing sources objectively which you are not doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.225.193 (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Please, the reference to "Paul Lambrino" must be removed!!! He was born in Paris under the name "Paul-Philippe DE HOHENZOLLERN". The article lacks the predicate preceding his FORMER surname, but that is a matter which he is going to take up by contacting directly the Wikipedia Foundation.

He does not use the name "Philippe" at all, so why are you so persistent in adding it in the title? With other subjects only the calling name is used; even in sources which refer to him as "Paul Lambrino", the "Philippe" is not used.

In regards to the name "Paul Lambrino"; the articles which are being utilised as reference are articles which are rather virulent towards HRH Prince Paul, hence, unacceptable as references for Wikipedia. Additionally, how come a few article outweigh the fact that Prince Paul is known under his actual name and title by major and reliable newspapers in Romania and elsewhere. According to Wikipedia emphasis ought to be given to English language sources when available; this is the case with Prince Paul who is known as Prince Paul of Romania in major newspapers in the UK.

Please also notice that in the past, HRH Prince Paul has been named "Paul Lambrino" by "mistake" even by prominent journalists who later had to retract themselves because they lost cases in courts of law. In 2000 he won a lawsuit against Frédéric Mitterand, in 2005 against Stéphane Bern. The later is BY NO MEANS a threat against Wikipedia or any of its administrators, but simply facts. Unlike his father, he has never been born the surname "Lambrino". That name is used by people who dispute his claim to the Royal House of Romania, but that is not clear from this article. The copies of the court decision shall be forwaded to Wikipedia Foundation so the name issue is settled for good.

The fact the article states "also known as Prince Paul of Romania or Paul Lambrino" implies he is known by about the same degree by either name!!! That is rather problematic because it simply is not true. The Government of Romania, foreign royal houses, his friends and family as well as the SERIOUS media outlets address him as Prince Paul of Romania. You only need to google him in several languages, and you shall find a plethora of articles about him with that name (i.e., Prince Paul of Romania, Printul Paul al Romaniei, Prince Paul de Roumanie, Príncipe Paul de Rumania, Paul Romania herceg, Prins Paul av Rumänien).

You can insist upon mentioning the fact that he is also known as "Paul Lambrino" but in that case, and for the sake of neutrality and fairness one ought to clarify that name is exclusively used by people who dispute his claims to the Royal House of Romania. Moreover, that in the past, HRH Prince Paul has taken legal actions against such individuals and won (once again, it is not a threat, simply a fact which needs to be added if you insist in mentioning the legally non-existent name "Paul Lambrino"). The later appellation also has no place in a sentence "also known as Prince Paul of Romania or..." because it misleads people to believe he is equally and acceptably known by both names — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.225.193 (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Your edits to Francis Bacon

Those drastic-seeming IP deletions were in fact the anon editor cleaning up after his/her previous additions. I've been watching them for too long now; a further pair of eyes to assess how it's going would be welcome. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Port Regis School for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Port Regis School 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/Port Regis School 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. Bob Re-born (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Bobby's Girl

Did you not see the big red warning telling you that {{expand}} isn't used anymore? (Also, {{expand further}} is used when you want the article to be expanded with already-given references.) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Brodrig

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

unsourced and nothing to suggest WP:notability as a standalone article.

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. noq (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lathan Devers

The article Lathan Devers has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unsourced and no indication of WP:notability - we don't need to create stub pages for every character Asimov wrote about.

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. noq (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Khader Adnan

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 Khader Adnan 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". 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 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. He to Hecuba (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia

Your templating on my talkpage was the most amateuristic action I have encountered in years. Test your edits in the WP:SANDBOX. -DePiep (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and your es here disqualifies you from neutrality. Is it a coincidence you only slipped your opinion in in this less obvious place? -DePiep (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Paths of Glory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Stein (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) 10:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

AfD and PROD notifications

Hey Pat. Back in November, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, and it was during one of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links on the page), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at swallingwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Chained Girls

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

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". 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 page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LegacyOfValor (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• I believe the nominator was in error. They may have mistaken the film topic as an attack page, I do not believe there was any such intention in this case. --Fæ (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

PatGallacher - I am prepared to userfy the article for you to continue drafting and improving it, if the deleting admin does not recreate in the next 24 hours. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

As Fastily seems busy elsewhere, I have userfied a copy of the article for you at User:PatGallacher/Chained Girls. You may find the links below useful, quality sources are easy to find. --Fæ (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I nominated the page because it had no sources and was written with an obvious slant to the point of slandering the film in topic. It was all opinion and written with quotations around words to influence meaning and felt it had to be removed until it was properly rewritten. LegacyOfValor (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It would have been better to raise a speedy for some other reason, a G10 should only be used when the reputation of a person is being disparaged in some way. From the text as it was, there was no obvious BLP violation or person being threatened or disparaged. It is only possible to slander a person, not a film. The draft has now been userfied so that PatGallacher can improve sources and re-create when ready, however a G10 seemed an excessive warning when a lack of sources could have been resolved by a PROD or a more neutral A7 if you felt notability was at question. Mistakes happen, so let's learn from this example and move on.

I would like to extend an apology to PatGallacher who appears to have attempted to create a valid article in good faith and been rewarded with a claim that they were attacking someone. This sort of mix up can easily happen, please don't be discouraged from continuing to create articles, including those on tricky topics. Drafting in userspace is often a good idea whilst you are still hunting for good quality reliable sources. Thanks Fæ (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I notice that the administrator has now reversed the deletion of this article. I am not too bothered about this on my own behalf, I recognise that as an experienced Wikipedian things don't often go smoothly, but some newbies might be put off if they create articles in good faith and then they find this stroppy warning on their talk page accusing them of BLP violations etc.. PatGallacher (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Harold Wilson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marcia Williams (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) 10:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Valerie Wise

The article Valerie Wise 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. The nominator also raised the following concern:

All biographies of living people created after March 18, 2010, must have references.

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. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:INTDABLINK

Greetings. Intentional disambiguation linking is mandated by WP:MOSDAB, WP:INTDABLINK, to remove false positives from lists of links needing repair. The relevant policy, arrived at through extensive discussion and consensus forging, clearly dictates that intentional links to disambiguation pages shall be piped through the "Foo (disambiguation)" redirect so that our disambiguators can go about their job of fixing the 800,000 errant disambig links. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

That strikes me as an odd approach, but I take it people have their reasons. PatGallacher (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

There are two reasons, primarily. First, if a link is to the "Foo (disambiguation)" redirect instead of to the disambiguation page "Foo", then it is immediately apparent that the link is intentional, and does not need to be fixed. Second, where the link is unpiped (as it generally is in disambiguation page see also sections), it alerts the reader that the link will be taking them to another disambiguation page, so they do not expect to be taken to an actual article by that title. Cheers again! bd2412 T 18:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. When you recently edited United Left Alliance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ESB (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) 10:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

William Wallace

Some time ago you reverted one of my edits claiming it was trivial, irrelevant, or digression, why do you think so any particular reason? Thanks for your time!--Cormag100 (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Re

Hi PatGallacher, just letting you know that I asked a question here. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 03:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Edward the Confessor

Re this edit. I was simply undoing a recent edit which had removed that tidbit in the first place. That fact which you called "pedantic" has been in the article since August 2005, so it seems to me that you should have strong consensus for removing it. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 16:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. When you recently edited Gabrielle Blunt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whisky Galore! (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) 10:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Nomination of R. v Evans and McDonald for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article R. v Evans and McDonald 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/R. v Evans and McDonald until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. EchetusXe 14:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

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.

Abdelbaset al-Megrahi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Herald

Kenneth Ives (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hawkeye

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

"Dubious" tag on Characters in Romeo and Juliet#Balthasar?

Hi Pat,

I just noticed that in you added a {{dubious}} tag to Characters in Romeo and Juliet#Balthasar. It's not immediately obvious to me which statement you find to be "dubious". Could you clarify? --Xover (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

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.

Craig Kelly (actor) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Spiceworld

Harold Bride (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Craig Kelly

The Last of the Mohicans (1971 series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Huron

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Dalyell (disambiguation)

Hello. Can I just ask that you inform the creator of a page if you nominate it for speedy deletion? I do disagree with the proposed deletion, but only saw it by chance. Please add a prod if you still think it should be deleted. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't understand why after this message, you prodded it, but again didn't inform the creator. Boleyn (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. When you recently edited Jonathan Aitken, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Waldegrave (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) 10:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Dalyell (disambiguation)

Hello. When another editor objects to speedy deletion, the proper course of action if you still want to delete it is to bring the matter to WP:Articles for deletion, not to wait two weeks and apply another speedy deletion tag. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I may have slipped up to some extent, but I may not be the only person to have done so. It looks as if the page was speedily deleted, but somebody re-created it. However, I'm leaning to the view that maybe we can keep this page. PatGallacher (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It was re-created because you hadn't contacted the creator; you didn't because you knew I'd contest it. You had already nominated it for speedy deletion and prodded it - removed by two different editors - so you knew it should have gone to afd. It was re-created because it's both a page which clearly meets the guidelines at MOS:D, and because you should not have nominated it as uncontroversial, when you knew full well it was not. I'm shocked by your behaviour in all this. Boleyn (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I was getting a bit confused, but I wasn't trying to pull a fast one on anyone. PatGallacher (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You've again nominated a page I created for speedy deletion without informing me, even after I've left three messages about this behaviour on your Talk page within the last couple of weeks. Please stop. Your reason didn't make any sense to me, at least. If you still think it should be deleted, please take it to AfD - and if you do, let the creator (i.e. me) know! It's basic courtesy, when someone's taken the trouble to create a page, and it's in the guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of United Kingdom local elections, 2013

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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent 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. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Scottish council elections

Where does 2017 come from? Local government in Scotland says councils are elected every 4 years. PamD 16:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Antarsya statement after Greek 2012 election

The article Antarsya statement after Greek 2012 election has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a venue for collecting political statements, esp. not those of extremist microparties.

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. Estlandia (dialogue) 13:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Antarsya statement after Greek 2012 election for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Antarsya statement after Greek 2012 election 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/Antarsya statement after Greek 2012 election until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Estlandia (dialogue) 15:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Manchester Central

That's probably the best thing to do! Sorry I've just looked at the history and I come across as a right plum. Didn't mean to do so, sorry. I think we had the traditional box at Bradford West until polling day. It's easier to edit for editors and IPs that way.

I was probably a bit stressed before. Will be better behaved from now on, promise doktorb _words^deeds 18:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Johann Wittenborg

The article Johann Wittenborg has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. 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. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 17:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Claudio del Plá

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Claudio del Plá. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Claudio del Plá

The article Claudio del Plá has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. 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. Bgwhite (talk) 08:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kenza Drider

The article Kenza Drider has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non notable person

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. Tachfin (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Please stop jumping to conclusions about my edits and throwing your weight around as if you own Wikipedia-and have you nothing better to do?

If you had read my explanations on the various pages on which you have been reverting my edits, you would have seen that I pointed out about the discussions that there WERE about these name changes, which are common sense and fair, and certainly not vandalism. If you want to contest them, please do so by adding to the discussions yourself (though I am not sure if you are actually even interested in and knowledgable about the articles and suspect you just enjoy patrolling Wiki like an uptight traffic warden) and please not just changing back without consensus. Thankyou. Nocrowx (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not throwing my weight around, I'm enforcing Wikipedia guidelines, that contentious moves should go through the move procedure, and naming conventions at WP:NCROY. PatGallacher (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Kenza Drider for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kenza Drider 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/Kenza Drider until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Tachfin (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Love Machine (dance troupe)

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 Love Machine (dance troupe) 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 an organization or company, 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 the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent 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. WWGB (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Sentences end with periods

At least they do in my country.
FYI. Varlaam (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Derren_Nesbitt

Do you by chance have a copy of the newspaper articles? Tiptoety ^talk 00:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I think there are some online, but linking to them could create problems as they could be copyright violations. The case did attract a certain amount of lurid publicity at the time. PatGallacher (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible to email me the links? Thanks! Tiptoety ^talk 01:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I could, but on second thoughts maybe there's dangers of attaching undue weight to this incident. PatGallacher (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I am not sure that the statements I removed are that important to the article and would like to see them removed. That said, if it is possible to provide me with reputable sources that confirm he engaged in the activities I would not protest them remaining in the article. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 04:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pat. Just checking in to see if you have any intention on responding to my query. Thanks! Tiptoety ^talk 05:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

My response is as above. PatGallacher (talk) 11:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

If you are worried about attaching undue weight then don't you agree it would be best to remove the content from the article all together? If you are unwilling to provide the reference that you placed in the article then the reference is no good. Tiptoety ^talk 16:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - The Times, Friday, Jan 26, 1973; pg. 4; Issue 58691; col A: Derren Nesbitt fined £250 for wife assaults. From Our Correspondent.

It's available online to anyone who has a UK public library ticket if their local library subscribes to the Times Digital Archive (as far as I know most do so - Lancashire and Leeds certainly do). But there is no requirement for references to be available online, and no requirement on an editor using a reference to supply other editors with copies of it: that's what libraries are for. PamD 17:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move of Côte d'Ivoire

There is currently a discussion on moving the article Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast. You are being notified since you participated in a previous discussion on this topic. Please join the discussion here if you are interested. TDL (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Walter Millar

I've no problem if you want to take the article to AfD, but I believe that sources exist, and that he meets the relevant notability criteria, so I've removed the prod. Warofdreams talk 10:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited Brian Glover, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page World of Sport (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Leslie Randall (actor)

The article Leslie Randall (actor) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Only a minor role is asserted; the only reference is an IMDB entry.

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.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Leslie Randall (actor) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Leslie Randall (actor) 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/Leslie Randall (actor) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Kind Hearts and Coronets

I've made my latest comments here: [[7]]. The main issue I have with this person is their attitude - they blatently state their version is better and that anything else is inferior, going so far as to call me a poor writer. I was under the impression that civility counted for something on Wikipedia? At any rate, a third opinion is needed.

113.21.40.134 (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Neal O'Boyle

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 Neal O'Boyle 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 the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent 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. Keystoneridin (speak) 01:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Neal O'Boyle

The article Neal O'Boyle has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

Hi. When you recently edited Tom Brown's Schooldays (TV serial), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guardian (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) 12:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

League Changes

Dunfermline and Dundee have not resigned there place therefore at the moment there is no position available in Div1 for Airdrie or Div2 for Stranraer. Rangers have said there future is uncertain as they don't know if SPL2 will be formed. The Herald and Channel four are stating that this is likely to be put forward.Edinburgh Wanderer 14:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I am going by a news announcement. The possible formation of SPL2 is a couple of seasons away. It is now surely certain that either Dunfermline or Dundee will be in the SPL next season, even if we don't know which. PatGallacher (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

As a regular contributor to the Airdrie United article I was tempted to add something in today regarding the vote taken by The Scottish Football League and the implications that vote may have on Airdrie. Although an announcement was made by the SFL that Airdrie would be playing in Division One and (my understanding) the clubs voted to accept any forthcoming resignation of Dundee or Dunfermline to allow such a vacancy for Airdrie, the media seem to be saying this saga has not finished its course. As it stands (on 13 July) the SPL have not accepted either Dundee or Dunfermline, so although it's likely to happen, it's not a done deal. Perhaps gentlemen we could agree to "abstain" from any changes in the article until this is signed, sealed and delivered? Centre Stand (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually it was league recon that was a couple of seasons away. SPL2 was a short term solution to the problem although very unlikely. The main point is until Dundee or Dunfermline resign the change cannot take place no club not even Rangers can be placed into Div3. Their resignation will be accepted but it has not happened. Its good faith because some sources don't make it clear that the SFA have yet to ratify or that no resignation has taken place the better ones do though. The SFL statement does not cover this section yet[8] the Clyde statement is spot on tonight they hope its over but they think not.[9]. The BBC source says poised to be promoted and they hope the SFA and SPL will go with the decision.[10]Edinburgh Wanderer 22:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Murder_of_Suzanne Pilley

Just a courtesy call to say that I'm trying to get a discussion started about restructuring and updating the article on the murder of Suzane Pilley. I only bring it to your attention because I note from the logs that it was you who moved the original HMA V Gilroy page to the current page - I'm proposing amongst other things that we undo this. SpectroscopicJ (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Derek Ogg

Hello again - I get the feeling we might be seeing a lot more of each other. This article needs updating. It hasn't been touched in a while, so I just took the liberty of going ahead and doing it. As the original author I thought I better let you know. Problems, or want to discuss anything about the article, get in touch. SpectroscopicJ (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

HM Advocate v Muirhead and McKenzie

Arite Pat, see the talk page on this article as well when you get a minute. SpectroscopicJ (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Côte d'Ivoire in sports

Sports are a special case. For instance, we use the name "Chinese Taipei" in sports contexts, even thought that name is not used in non-sports contexts. I reverted the undiscussed move to Ivory Coast at the Olympics, it should go to an RM. (For instance, there is currently an RM proposal to move Myanmar football articles to Burma titles) For things like Economy of Ivory Coast, I didn't revert it although some would argue that even that should go through an RM (the precedent here would be articles like Flag of China, which went the RM route even though People's Republic of China had been moved to China some time earlier. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Fictional air force sergeants

A tag has been placed on Category:Fictional air force sergeants requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for four days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent 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. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Wiki

If you think any person comes to this blog for crediable sources you are mistaken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.71.160 (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Rangers F.C.". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 August 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Maher Abu Remeleh

The article Maher Abu Remeleh has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. 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. j⚛e decker^talk 17:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

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.

Christopher Robert Ingham Brooke (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to D.S.O.

Martha Wardrop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Largo

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Andrew Moray (justiciar), PatGallacher!

Wikipedia editor Kieranian2001 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Just stub at the moment though with links and categories

To reply, leave a comment on Kieranian2001's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Rangers F.C., to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 20:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Vlad the Impaler (Vlad Dracul)

Please see the talk page for Charles Prince of Wales. I have provided source material to substantiate the fact that the Prince of Wales is directly descended from Vlad the Impaler. I hope this proves useful.Ds1994 (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT and Chinese names

Removing DEFAULTSORT from Chinese names as you did on Huang Qian‎ is not correct according to WP:SUR. I think the reason is that it does not sort correctly w.r.t. a name like Al Huang ({{DEFAULTSORT:Huang, Al}}). Even if this were not the case I don't see the point in removing the correct default sort as it is valuable documentation. Quale (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• I actually had this conversation with you before in 2009, so this is round two. User_talk:PatGallacher/Archive1#DEFAULTSORT. Quale (talk) 06:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ding Yixin

Hello, PatGallacher. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Ding Yixin, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Ding Yixin to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you need help doing so, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, ♠♠ BanëJ ♠♠ ^(Talk) 13:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Ways to improve Sopiko Khukhashvili

Thanks for creating Sopiko Khukhashvili, PatGallacher!

Wikipedia editor Pigsonthewing has tagged the page as having some issues to fix. In addition, they wrote this note for you:

Please provide references

The tags on the page can be removed by you or another editor when the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on Pigsonthewing's talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the the Teahouse.

Learn more about page curation.

Proposed deletion of Sam Bacile

The article Sam Bacile has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:BLP1E, keep information in Innocence of Muslims

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. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Inna Yanovska for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Inna Yanovska 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/Inna Yanovska until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SyG (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Samara

Thank you for the friendly message. It will be taken to heart. Qworty (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Margaret Curran (disambiguation)

Pat, I can't believe I'm contacting you about this on a 5th occasion in a short period of time. You have again nominated a page for speedy deletion, without letting the creator know. Creators must be informed - you know this. Also, again, the page clearly doesn't meet the criteria - there are 3 entries. Please, please read other MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION so you can see that redlinks are acceptable on disambiguation pages, and then please stop nominating pages for speedy deletion when they are valid. Boleyn (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, but I feel I should point out that in this case the red link was recently prodded. PatGallacher (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Boleyn (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Seven Angry Men

Hello PatGallacher,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Seven Angry Men for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Danielj2705 17:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dr. Finlay's Casebook (TV & radio), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Copeland (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) 10:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Please wait for consensus on the talk page before re-adding these POV tags. Thanks, T. trichiura Infect me 20:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I realise that there is a dispute arising in relation to this article, but it sometimes takes two sides to make a heated dispute. I don't think I have broke the 3RR. I'm happy to continue talking on the talk page at present. However I think describing my edits as POV is itself somewhat POV. PatGallacher (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting logic, but wrong. It has been described as POV because it's not accurate according to Italian legal theory, and therefore calling him a tax evader introduces POV. The important bit is that you stop re-adding the tag, as you repeatedly have done, while the discussion is ongoing. (Please read the notice more carefully regarding 3RR). T. trichiura Infect me 21:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I only reverted twice, another Wikipedian who has nothing to do with me also reverted twice. However I will continue discussing at present. PatGallacher (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Pat, I find it rather silly that you were given a "warning" by Trichuris trichiura, who has twice removed the categories: [11], [12]. Trichuris trichiura should beware of WP:BOOMERANG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited When the Legends Die, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ute (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) 01:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Sir Dudley Pound

Hi - I notice that you have re-inserted the text from Pursuit: The Sinking of the Bismarck. The reason I deleted it was because I was trying to get the article re-assessed as B class on the quality assessment scale. That cannot be achieved without page numbers for all references. I have no problem with the text you have inserted remaining in the article (it is good material) but please can you insert the page numbers to meet the precise requirements of WP:SOURCE. Thanks in anticipation. Dormskirk (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of James Beckett (actor)

The article James Beckett (actor) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of meeting WP:ENTERTAINER.

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. Canadian Paul 15:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Rotherham by-election

Well now I don't know what to do.....

When the story broke earlier today, MacShane hadn't resigned, and knowing how Wikipedia's rapid response corps behave - particularly irresponsible IP address editors - I created and redirected Rotherham by-election, 2012 and Rotherham by-election, 2013. This would, I hoped, put a pause on people setting up new articles whilst we didn't have an actual resignation, not to mention a date.

I now see that Rotherham by-election 2012 has been fleshed out, so I can't really do much about that, but I hope we can stop too many editors pouring in with vandalism. See Next Middlesbrough by-election for one solution to the problem of not having a date yet, whilst having editors who want to create an article.

How do you think we should proceed, if indeed we need to?

(I'll copy this message to editors who worked on both 2012 and 2013 by-election articles)

doktorb _words^deeds 17:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

We now have two articles 'live', 2012 and 2013. Partly my fault, but the opposite to what I'd intended doktorb _words^deeds 17:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Irene von Meyendorff

The article Irene von Meyendorff has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability and no reliable sources for a BLP.

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. Eeekster (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Joan Smith (disambiguation)

Pat, this is the sixth time I'm contacting you about the same issue, in a pretty short space of time. If it happens again, I can only assume it is deliberate and will have to take it further. Please inform creators if you nominate their page for deletion - it's the guidelines and it's basic courtesy - but I have said this before. Boleyn (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, maybe it's the first sign of dementia. PatGallacher (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Prince Georg of Hanover

Hello Pat, I removed the prod from the above article as I do not think it's a suitable candidate for a proposed deletion an AfD would be more appropriate. Thank you. Rotten regard Softnow 19:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Lord Nicholas Windsor

Children who are baptized in a Catholic church are "baptized Catholic." This is not something that requires a citation or proof of any sort. Please do not revert this information in the Nicholas Windsor article again. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you give us a source for that? This was discussed before at Talk:Line of succession to the British throne, nobody came up with a definite answer. As most Christian churches tend to recognise each other's baptisms you could just be baptised a Christian. See WP:PROVEIT. PatGallacher (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dronavalli Harika, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grandmaster (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) 10:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Grand Duchy and Grand Duchy

I have seen the discussion about the deletion only two hours ago. What's the problem with that content? Is it usourced or what? What's the difference between the Grand Duchy of Tuscany and the Monarchy of Bavaria or the Grand Duchy of Hesse? Are they larger than Tuscany or what? --Chiorbone da Frittole (talk) 02:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a crucial problem was that this line of succession is unsourced. I am in the process of going through these lines of succession to former monarchies, in my view many of them are not encyclopedic and candidates for deletion, but I am prepared to take this in easy stages and I recognise that each must be considered on its individual merits. Hesse looks like a likely candidate for deletion, not sure about Bavaria? PatGallacher (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Kingdom of Bavaria: 1806–1918 (112 years). Grand Duchy of Hesse: 1806–1918 (112 years). Grand Duchy of Baden: 1806–1918 (112 years). Grand Duchy of Mecklenburg-Schwerin: 1815-1918 (103 years). Kingdom of Hanover: 1814-1866 (52 years) . Kingdom of Albania: 1928-1939 (11 years!). All these reigns have their "line of succession throne" wiki page. Grand Duchy of Tuscany: 1569-1859 (290 years, but it's even older, because Grand Duchy of Tuscany succeeded the Duchy of Florence). Anyway, i will look for some sources in the next days. --Chiorbone da Frittole (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Wyndham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Village of the Damned (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) 10:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Rosie Huntington-Whitely

Hi. I've reverted your deletion of what I believe to be properly sourced and notable material. In my edit summary, I indicated that I'd start a thread on the talk page, so we (and any other interested editors) can try to achieve a consensus about whether your deletion should be restored. I've now started the thread. I'd welcome your input.

Thanks. David in DC (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Honkala

Replied on my talk page. 50.193.171.70 (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)