User talk:Swpb

wiki-4This user is an expert Wikipedia editor.

This user has been a Wikipedian since August 4, 2006.

This user is a participant in WikiProject Disambiguation.

This user contributes to Wikidata, the free knowledge base.

speedy deletion: LoadFocus

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Rob Lippiatt 20:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I am only just starting with this article but please do not delete it. In uk English non league football colon Lippiatt is most likely one of the most well known and successful and therefore is of significant historical importance

To editor Swpb:

Hello,

I am new to creating content on Wikipedia, and just wanted to understand what should I do not to get the page deleted again? Page deleted: swpbT 15:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Andrew Andrew.qatestacc (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC) User:Andrew.qatestacc 15:08 - Saturday, 16 April 2016

dab notices

see reply at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#dab_notices. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Pepper

Hi !

I agree with your comment on the pepper-disambiguation.

The problem I ran into when trying to fix it is that it appears to me as if *most* of the pages linking to "pepper" really mean pepper as in the group of spices. Which means that:

Linking to black_pepper is wrong. Linking to the disambiguation is however also not correct, it is clear they mean "pepper (spice)" and not for example, "pepper (music)". I wrote about it on the talk-page for pepper.

What do you think about my idea: Write a new page "pepper (spice)" which talks about the group of spices commonly refered to as pepper (or peppers), and include links to the various types of peppers, such as black_pepper and chili_pepper.

Good ? Bad ? Wanna help ?

Weightlessness

Excuse me,but i didnt edit that page.You might be mistaken with someone else. 82.20.49.200 November the 13th 2007 5:19 (UTC)

Trønder

Sorry about that. I was not aware of the prosedure. I swear I was not comitting vandalism. Thanks for letting me know. Nastykermit (talk)

Slide

Hello, Swpb. You have new messages at Baffle gab1978's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kaustubh Sarwate User: kausis

Nehru Institute of Mountaineering is a highly renowned mountaineering institute in India as well as in Asia. Yet there is very little information available about the courses they conduct. My endeavour was to attempt to capture this information thereby making it a fairly reliable source of information for both national and international students planning to do the course here. I believe the article provides a lot of detail which is otherwise not available either on wikipedia or externally. What I have covered is from my personal experience at the institute recently. Hence the request to maintain this information on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kausis (talk • contribs)

Changing a pages title and url

Hi quick question, how do I edit the page title and url as I need to change Bob Ives (racing driver) to Bob Ives (Off Road Specialist). Still working on this page, updates will follow, so hopefully your be able to remove your tags.User:Fluffyghost

Yarkhushta

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yarkhushta

Shivanshis4

Hi !!

I am currently working on the page 'CFactory'..that's why it is blank..Please check it after some hours.And if you can, then approve it too.I am trying to follow all instructions of wikipedia. But i will appreciate if you will guide me.I am using it for the first time.

Thanks !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivanshis4 (talk • contribs)

Double speedy

Hey, looks like we tagged Ramesh deuba for speedy deletion at the exact same time. Hope you don't mind that I took yours off - looked weird to have two tags on the same page. --Drm310 (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Uncat cats

Just FYI just to save you looking, I've knocked off all of the uncategorised categories apart from the China ones from Zee money/Emausbot. I did nearly 300 of them a while back, I just needed a break before going back to them! My Wiki time is rather patchy so I'm not much use for regular maintenance, instead I come in and hit a backlog on a one-off basis, so I'm afraid I can't commit to chasing these things on an ongoing basis. Cheers.Le Deluge (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

To editor Le Deluge: Nicely done! Don't feel bad about any patchiness; all help is appreciated! —swpb^T 20:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

And it's now all done - for now... I'm not sure how much more time I'll have in this block, but there's always backlogs to tackle! Le Deluge (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Splits

I don't know why you are so against the splitting. I mean, come on, I saw you are working for 10 years, I am no different devoted like you, I never did it without reading guidelines for Splitting, I am honest. Beside obvious discussion was quite minimal on those author pages, so I did always with good faith and being bold. I will try to discuss any matter that the splits on articles we can observe are quite incapable of holding the bibliographies but please let's assume good discussion and not threatening and malign each other. Many of these articles needed such splits. But we have to gather and talk, since I think there should be more included into the decisions.

Kindest regards and greatest respect:The Mad Hatter (talk)

To editor Mad Hatter: It's not my talk page where you need to make your case; it is the talk pages of the articles you believe should be split. Place the {{split}} template on the top of the article, initiate a discussion on the talk page, and wait a reasonable time for responses. Since, as you say, some of these pages may not be closely watched, I think you should give at least ten days. As you know, I oppose most of these splits as unjustified by the length of readable text, and the guideline is firmly with me on that — so you will need to demonstrate significant support, not merely silence, before you proceed. I believe you have misread WP:SIZESPLIT; it is readable text size that matters, not total page size. As such, nearly all of your splits fall far short of the criteria. If you think the criteria are wrong, then you need to start a policy discussion. —swpb^T 12:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

To editor Mad Hatter: If I might interject, although this is not my area whatsoever and I've not followed the history - I think Mad Hatter does have a point. My test is always to think about what a GA version of an article would look like, and looking at something like Jennifer Roberson, I think the detail in the bibliography would be excessive for the GA version of the biography. So I think there is the basis for a content-based split, on the grounds that the article is about a person and not the books. I have no opinion whether the book summaries belong in Wikipedia, but either they should be shortened and kept in the bio article, or split out into a separate article. One or the other, because at the moment the article is very unbalanced and it just doesn't work as an article. Anne McCaffrey looks a bit more marginal. I'd agree that discussion should be started on the Talk pages - and the issue flagged on WT:BIOG and WT:BOOKS or appropriate taskforces thereof.Le Deluge (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

That's a valid point; there may be an argument for content-based as opposed to size-based splits, in some cases. The proper process needs to be followed, of course. —swpb^T 14:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Anne McCaffrey has a special Anne McCaffrey bibliography and we are just dublicating the material in the main article. I left only... Clasification section I think, into the article, and I don't understand why so swiftly it got reverted, and I even gave a notice that it is dublicating with the main article. Jennifer Roberson and Jim Butcher are perfect exemple that the articles are getting out of proportion to hold such lenghty bibliographies. I did the same on Robert Jordan and pointed out that Jordan is a notable Conan author, but we should look over the articles if they are getting too big to hold such information, we should split the pages into their own Bibliography like I did on Gregory Benford and the R.A. Salvatore bibliography, that can be found in the special Category for Fantasy bibliographies or the same for Sci-Fi. There is no need for such a mash up in the main article.

The Mad Hatter (talk)

To editor Mad Hatter: Again, the place you need to make your case is not here, but on the article's talk pages. You need editors with an interest in the specific articles to weigh in and agree with you. No amount of discussion on my personal talk page is going to suffice. —swpb^T 14:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletion?

Hi, Just a question, why are you proposing nearly all my articles for deletion? 102Legobrick (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

To editor 102Legobrick: Read the nomination. It tells you everything you need to know. Although your removal of the prods without explanation rubbed me the wrong way, you can be assured this isn't personal; I truly believe these pages are not acceptable by Wikipedia standards, at least in their current state. Feel free to look for more and better resources and add information on why each of these vessels is notable, if such information exists. —swpb^T 15:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

For all mentioned yachts I have found additional sources, and I added them to the corresponding articles. I hope this is enough to take them off the deletion list. 102Legobrick (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Printing Revolution

He only created a redirect. You need to contact the editor who made it an article. Johnbod (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Datuk G. Palanivel listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Datuk G. Palanivel. Since you had some involvement with the Datuk G. Palanivel redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 04:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Spy-Fi

Where did claim any of these accusations against you? I just claimed that since there is no opposition to the split there is no further need for consensus. WP:BRD allows people to do this unless somebody has a valid reason to oppose such a move so then consensus must be reached, but it's no longer needed here. I started a discussion days ago and nobody ever opposed so at this point we no longer need consensus.

I never accused you of anything.--Taeyebaar (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

To editor Taeyebaar: I don't understand half of what you're trying to say (what is this talk of you accusing me of something?), but what I do understand you have totally wrong. You knew there was "opposition to the split", because I reverted it, so claiming there was no opposition is false. You didn't ping anyone in your "discussion" (do you understand that linking to a user like [[User:Swpb]] is not the same thing as pinging them with the {{to}} template?) Regardless of what you thought when, policy is clear: where there is no consensus, the original version stands (that means before the split). If you want to split again, you'll need to get a real consensus. Mad Hatter is facing community sanction for doing what you're doing, so don't think you are immune from the same. —swpb^T 17:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

My Reason

Hi As i already mentioned that i am a web designer so as a learner i want to learn Wikipedia markup language and so that why i am trying 'cause it provide an environment to execute it's markup language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepak Singh Bisht Nainital (talk • contribs) 18:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

To editor Deepak Singh Bisht Nainital: Did you read the reply I wrote for you? There are spaces where you can learn and practice all you want. The main article space is not one of them. That is why the page you made is being deleted. —swpb^T 19:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aragam, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Himalayan and North Kashmir (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) 10:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Appropriate targets

Why do you persist in making incorrect links? As Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation says, "Do not guess how to fix the link; if you have trouble, tag the link with {{disambiguation needed}}." Ozob (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)