User talk:Ceyockey

Archives

• User talk:Ceyockey/archive1 ~ before April 2006
• User talk:Ceyockey/archive2 ~ June 2006 to April/May 2007
• User talk:Ceyockey/archive3 ~ May 2007 through October 2007

Euclides da Cunha (disambiguation)

What's the point of putting a redirect at a title that has zero incoming links (save for its inclusion on two automated lists of prod pages and disambig pages, respectively) and that nobody will ever spontaneously try to visit? Propaniac 17:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

To say that disambig pages are not supposed to have incoming links is completely inaccurate. A disambig page with "(disambiguation)" in the title must be linked from another article, or it is very, VERY unlikely that anybody will ever visit that page. Links to disambig pages are typically placed at the top of the article most commonly associated with that term; these are called hatnotes. For example, if I enter "sheep" in the search box, I am redirected to the article Domestic sheep, because that's probably what I'm looking for. But there is a link at the top of that article to Sheep (disambiguation) (as well as Lamb (disambiguation)) in case, for example, what I'm actually looking for is the sheep zodiac sign, which is at Sheep (zodiac). If there were no links to that disambiguation page, the only way I would ever access it is to type "Sheep (disambiguation)" in the search box, which the vast majority of WP users would never think to do, or to do a search for "sheep", which circumvents the point of having a disambig page for the term in the first place. It's for this same reason--that there is no reasonable means by which someone could be expected to access anything at the title "[X] (disambiguation)" without an internal link to that title--that placing a redirect at such a title is pointless.

Specifically, there was no point in adding a link to this particular disambig page at the top of the Euclides da Cunha article because there was only one other existing article that could maybe be confused with it, and thus as most there should be a link to that one article and not to a disambig page that links only to that article. As I explained in the prod reasoning.

You might want to withhold both your disruptive edits and your condescending little remarks--why, yes, I CAN read through strikethroughs--until you understand the basic principles of how Wikipedia is navigated. Propaniac 04:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

From the top of WP:DAB#Links to disambiguation pages, which you so kindly linked me to:

There is rarely a need for links directly to disambiguation pages—except from any primary topic.

Emphasis added, since you seem to require it. I'm genuinely boggled at your inability to acknowledge this, and how you've managed to transfer your misunderstandings about disambig pages to redirects. I probably will nominate the redirect at RFD, since I'd be curious about what kind of benefit they may be able to find for someone who types "Euclides da Cunha (disambiguation)" into the Wikipedia search box while looking for the article located at Euclides da Cunha. Even if they manage to find some possible case that could technically exist in which this would happen, I personally feel that this benefit is outweighed by the drawback of adding yet another stupid, illogical thing to the world. Regardless, I doubt there's any need for us to converse any further. If you want to give me another link to a WP policy that indicates in the first sentence precisely that I am right and you are wrong, or if you want to call me uninformed again while advertising your own weak grasp of the concepts, I'll assume you're trolling. Propaniac 16:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't realize this, but striking out a comment so that it reads as "You should know that--oh, wait, but you don't" doesn't come across as any less nasty than leaving the original sarcastic comment untouched. It's true I didn't scrutinize the edit history on my Talk page to deduce your intentions.

The reason I didn't edit the affected pages myself is because there is no point in the disambig page existing at all, given that there are only two existing articles that could possibly need disambiguation (and it's still not clear that the municipality ending with Paulista would reasonably be confused with the author's article). Since there's only two, and the author is obviously going to be the more common target, a hatnote going to the only other article is adequate. I mentioned that there were no links going to the disambig page not because I thought the existence of such links would make the disambig page viable, but as supporting evidence that the page was useless, ignored and likely only existed because nobody was aware of it.

As I said above, I come from the school of thought that if something is stupid and impractical, it should be deleted whether or not it actually incurs negative impact by existing, and a disambig page that nobody needs and nobody could reasonably be expected to visit (without deliberately directing people there unnecessarily, as in the current hatnote) is both. If you fundamentally disagree, we're at an impasse, and I'd be happy to take the thing to AFD (where, I think, people may tend to be more practical than RFD). If it's voted to be kept there, that's fine. Propaniac 14:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I genuinely appreciate the RFD link you left, although I still don't think it's precisely relevant since that redirect was the result of a page move (and the redirect still went to a disambig page). After being off WP for a few days due to work, I really don't care that much anymore, but for the sake of completeness I am planning to throw the thing up on AFD and then they can do with it whatever they want. Probably it'll become a redirect again, and nobody will ever, ever, ever, ever gain any practical use out of it, but whatever. Propaniac 15:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

MfD/AfD

Hi,

Disambiguation pages typically go to AfD, since they're in the main namespace. In this case, I've just redirected. If one is in doubt about deleting a disamb., redirecting is the thing to do: anyone who desires deletion will then end up at RfD, which sees its fair share of pages ending in (disambiguation) also. I closed the debate because I didn't want it to devolve into a five-day discourse on procedure. When regulars see a type of page that they are unaccustomed to, it can cause heads to explode! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 13:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Health effects of homogenized milk article

You denied the deletion nomination stating that there was no reason given. I stated my reaon on the Talk:Health effects of homogenized milk page. If this is not the proper procedure, please let me know what I should have done, as I've only been editing for 2 months and am not experienced with deletions. Thank you OccamzRazor 01:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You were so helpful in educating me about the PROD process, I wanted to ask if you could help me understand what's going on with another editor suggesting that I have some sort of COI with the articles I edit (I don't even know the general topic he is talking about). He has also accused me of doing a malicious stealth attack on you on my talk page. I'd really like to understand what it is about my editing that makes him so convinced that I am not acting in good faith. You can see the bizarre exchange here [1].If you have time, any comment or advice about how best to handle this situation would be appreciated. Thank you OccamzRazor 13:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Albanian political parties

I'm sorry, but why did you merge them? They are separate political parties, parliamentary. --PaxEquilibrium 10:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Khazar Ibrahim

I contest the Prod. I was not even notified. Being a "press Secretary of the Foreign Ministry of Azerbaijan" is enough to make a person notable. -- Cat ^chi? 18:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

you provided a comment on my talk page - permalink version

This article was listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Azerbaijan by me; I strongly prefer to notify groups with knowledge and interest rather than individuals. As a matter of my personal opinion, I have little sympathy for people who decry the fact that they were not personally notified when an article that they are interested in (or began) is being considered for deletion. However, that does not mean I won't act on your request. I will undelete the article and take take it to WP:AFD based on your contesting the PROD ... I'm also of the opinion that the 5-day period shouldn't be used as a hard and fast rule, that time doesn't run out to contest (well - if a year passes ... perhaps then ... reason comes into play then). If you do not have the article on your watchlist, please add it; if you have it, but were away or not in a position to contest previously, I understand. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I deal with far too many articles. My watchlist for the most part is useless for me. It is generally accepted an extra step of good faith and civility to notify the creator. This is typicaly expected from the nominator. {{prodwarning}} exists for a reason (it is displayed on the prod template itself as well). All that aside, I see 2,400 hits on Google establishing notability (IMHO). Mind you this is the English spelling. I do not know the spelling in the Azerbaijani language or in Cyrillic script (used in Azerbaijan). I am not really interested in expanding the article as I know very little about the man or Azerbaijan. I merely encountered his name while writing Fall 2007 clashes in Hakkari. He made a statement behalf of the Azerbaijani government in response to the 21 October PKK attacks. I created a stub for him in the hope that it would be eventually expanded. -- Cat ^chi? 19:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

JAMAA

The restoration of JAMAA was done purely because other agreed that it should be restored after reputable and independent third-party sources had been added. The article now indeed meets that requirement. Also, hours had gone by and the Deletion review was given very little attention by administrators. Rhythmnation2004 13:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Note on your declined speedy delete of Divertissant

The reason I tagged it as A7 was that it appeared (other than the first sentence) to be an article about a Final Fantasy XI clan, which I believed qualified it for the "group", "club", or "organization" clause of WP:CSD#A7. The prod is fine too, of course, although I'd recommend speedying it if the previous content is re-added. JavaTenor 18:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bootstrapping (science fiction)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bootstrapping (science fiction), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bootstrapping (science fiction). Thank you. --B. Wolterding 13:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

Thanks for letting me know, I didn't know about it until today. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

David Ginty - notability? COI?

Could you have a look at David Ginty? It appears to me to be a likely COI, as well as an article of doubtful notability, and the references seem weak. He might be a step above the average professor, but not much of one, and I don't see much evidence of what he's actually done. I thought I should seek out another opinion before going to AFD or deciding to leave it alone. Many thanks, Mwanner | Talk 22:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

response at User talk:Mwanner#David Ginty article --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input-- I think my hackles tend to rise when I sense self-authorship, and I get overly suspicious. I think that, based on your input, I will remove the notability tag, and let the matter stand. Thanks again, Mwanner | Talk 00:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

2008 Youth Parliamentary Elections

I think the best solution to the problem is to merge the 2008 Youth Parliamentary Elections page with the New Youth Parliament page...Let it be so! -cerl7011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerl 7011 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:PROD

Thanks for closing the AfD on نامی پتگر. You suggested there that PROD could have been used for it; would PROD be the best route for the other articles we have at WP:PNT? -Yupik (talk) 13:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! We've had quite a heavy backlog at WP:PNT lately, so any way of getting the articles deleted when no one steps forward to translate them is fine by me. Most of them I put up for speedy, as they are usually junk, but quite a few still hang around, especially translations of songs on albums. If you happen to know anyone who is enough of a masochist to want to proofread some of the texts, we have quite a selection of those, too. -Yupik (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Next Top Model

Glad someone else is looking at 's Next Top Model, Cycle 5. Not only is it someone else's call-out order, the names are totally different! That is why I marked it as fiction. It also has a strange similarity to HNTTMM which I believe was also fiction. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

{{R from surname}}

Your work on the template is probably correct, but it really messed me up. I was doing a lot of work subcategorizing Category:Surnames, trying to empty the cat, and this really pushed me back. What can be done? Is it possible to edit the template that allows it to be subcategorized? All the best, --Brewcrewer (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If you didn't understand what I was saying it is probably my bad, I don't explain myself well. If you look at Category:Surnames you will see the "cattrim" template requesting that the "This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large..." Well I was doing just that: depopulating the category by trying to subcategorize the surnames that were included in Category:Surnames. For example, if McQueen was categorized as Category:Surnames, I changed the cat to Category:Irish surnames. The new template doesn't give me a way to go into the template and subcategorize the surname.

I noticed that you started a discission on the talk page of the template, but in all honesty I had a hard time understanding what you were saying. Template programming is not, at the least, my expertise. All the best, --Brewcrewer (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that you reverted your edit. But shouldn't that mean that the Category:Surnames should revert back to its original form? --Brewcrewer (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What's an "edit cycle" ?--Brewcrewer (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Also, I was kind if hoping that you would leave the redirects in Category:Surnames but have the template allow me to subcategorize. If that can't be done, I don't think that you should revert your edit. It is probably more important that the redirects have some sort of surname cat on them then for the Category:Surnames to be emptier. I am sorry if I am driving you crazy with this issue. This is unfamiliar territory for me. --Brewcrewer (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Woo Hoo! I tried one and it worked. Great job! --Brewcrewer (talk) 03:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Dillen

Cool, where'd you find that? I knew it was out there somewhere. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I meant the source. I felt like he was notable. Also, I was trying to get rid of some tennis redlinks and had trouble finding sources. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Dlohcierekim 01:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Aliya Jasmine Sovani

Why does the Aliya_Jasmine Sovani page keep getting deleted??? I never receieved any warning this time. Jamierush (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Jamie

Quechev

As there are absolutely no sources, it seems very probable this is a hoax: is it worth passing it to Wiktionary? I suppose they would do their own checks before putting it in, but it seems like giving them unnecessary trouble. JohnCD (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Prod2 tags

Ahoy. Just so you know, {{prod2}} tags should not be substituted. Thanks! --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

DelSort for Oregon

Hi, I saw you seconded a prod of mine (Grassland Oregon) and so I looked at your contribs and saw you have a subpage that keeps track of deletion sorting stuff. So I just thought I'd let you know that I've started maintaining the one for Oregon and have also linked it to WP:ORE's front page, and at least one other person from the project is helping keep the page updated, while several others check it regularly, judging by their participation in deletion discussions. I've also expanded the page a bit an am using it to keep track of Oregon-related proposed mergers to help clear the backlog there. Hope that helps, thanks. Katr67 (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of a plane on a conveyor belt.

You speedily deleted this article for because it was a recreation of a previously deleted article. I question this decision because the new article specifically provided what the previous talk page required for a future consideration for a posting of this article, specifically Notariety. The new nomination for deletion was for a completely different reason, and was currently being discussed how to fix it. Per suggestion from Baccayak4H I would like the previous article restored and moved to my own talk page for editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sao123 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate deletion of 'Jacques Dallaire'

Hi, I'm just curious as to why did you delete this? I hereby request that it be re-instated, or that you at least provide account for your deleting of such. Dr. Dallaire is a poineer in human performance and has contributed much to the NASCAR and F1 communities over his long career. Please advise and thank you. redfive77 (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Prussian Blue

Why the merge of this album in particular? The article seems awkward having a discography and one album merged directly into it. Was the merge a result of a discussion? the_undertow ^talk 01:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I was just talking about continuity - either all merged or none. If it's all the same to you, I'd like to put the article back. the_undertow ^talk 01:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll consider citation if I decide to restore the article. I'm just not a big fan of redirecting articles without discussion. I appreciate the good faith reminder about deletion process and WP:V, but I just wanted to let you know I have a 'lil experience here. :P the_undertow ^talk 04:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Your subtitles are making my talk page look pretty official - I like that. PROD is a strange place to be - like articles lose their value if they are not tended to. I've never deleted a prodded article - not my thing. I think what you did was fine. I didn't realize you were under the gun of a PROD, which certainly changes my opinion on redirects without discussion. I'm trying to source the article, but the only RS is one in German. the_undertow ^talk 04:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Invite

Century Tower

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Fingerboard AfD

Hi, this article has rewritten, please consider revisiting the AfD discussion to see if your comments have been addressed. Benjiboi 23:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Artemis Fowl

Alright, I was just following this passage at WP:PROD#Conflicts: If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except if the removal was clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article, or removing the tag along with inserting blatant nonsense). I wasn't aware of WP:CSD#G7, so thanks for letting me know. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT

Hi Ceyockey, I have noticed you have been adding the DEFAULTSORT template to articles recently. Just to let you know that this feature is a magic word and not a template, and the correct construction is {{DEFAULTSORT:Sortkey}} rather than {{DEFAULTSORT|Sortkey}} or {{defaultsort|Sortkey}}, using ":" instead of "|". The template was created to prevent confusion and shouldn't be used. Please ask if you have any questions. Thanks, mattbr 15:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's OK, I was just about to fix them. The template provides the same functionality as the magic word, so it still works as intended, but just creates an uneeded dependency on a template. It shouldn't really exist, but it does. Cheers, mattbr 16:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to Stop

Why did you re-delete the article I restored and PRODDED. There is an assertion of notability. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The article does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and is a candidate for speedy deletion. Once an article is speedy deleted (which this one was) it is not appropriate to then recreate and relabel the article for Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. If an article is put on the PROD path beforehand, that's fine, but not after the article is already deleted.--Alabamaboy (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, where was the assertion of notability? I didn't see a holdon tag or anything raised on the article's talk page before I deleted it.--Alabamaboy (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no once deleted, forever deleted. What I object to is you not following the PROD guidelines. As it specifically states at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, articles that "Have previously been undeleted" are not candidates for PROD. So once you undeleted the article, you should not have placed the PROD template on it. Anyway, are you opposing the deletion? If so, then the article is again not a candidate for Wikipedia:Proposed deletion and should be immediately brought up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I'd support recreating the article for an AfD. Otherwise, if you don't object to the article's deletion, I stand by the fact that this is a candidate for speedy deletion. So do you want to do an AFD on it? --Alabamaboy (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not trying to start a fight over this, but as it states at PROD "Appropriate alternatives such as Wikipedia:Copyright problems or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion take precedence" over PROD. But I'm happy to bring this article up for an AfD if you want.--Alabamaboy (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this issue out for other people to comment on. Getting a consensus on the issue will clear up the murkiness around the issue. BTW, after looking at the edit times on the article it appears you sent it back to PROD at the same time I was examining it for speedy delete. Since I didn't refresh my cache at that point, I didn't realize you had changed it to PROD. Hope there's no hard feelings here b/c I think the whole situation was a simple disagreement over procedure. Hopefully this discussion will clarify the issue. Best, --Alabamaboy (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't

really be online. But have a great 2008! Best, Rt. 00:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Cars 2 AFD

Thanks for AFDing that one -- that will teach me to look for previous activity! And have a Happy New Year! -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Aftab Ahmed Vohra

I should have checked the talk page about previous AfD nomination. Thanks for fixing the article. I agree with your action. Dekisugi (talk) 08:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:HowFake

I am not an admin but I've added my opinion to the AN/I thread. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Anhinga

Thanks for having deleted Patrick Carroll page. (I had not checked my account until today). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anhinga (talk • contribs) 13:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Film template quirk

Saw that you've been doing some tagging lately (well done!) and I noticed that there's an odd quirk of the template. I'm not certain if it does this for all classes, but for at least the "Future" class, it won't register the parameter if written as "Class"; it needs to be "class". Again, I'm not certain if that's for all variables or only Future-class articles, but thought I'd give you a heads up. Many thanks and keep up the good work, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Read (singer) (2nd nomination)

Why is it there and not at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Read (singer)? — Dihydrogen Monoxide 04:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but for navigational purposes it makes more sense at the redlinked location, with a link to the first AfD (under a different name) present. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 04:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Havidol AfD

I have made some significant updates to the Havidol article that I believe addresses your concerns about notability. Please review the current version of the article to see whether you believe this will be sufficient to save the article from deletion. I would appreciate it if you would share any additional concerns about notability.

If I had not had knowledge of the Havidol art exhibit, I would have agreed with you assessment of the article's lack of notability in the state that I found it prior to my edits. I am not one of the original authors and came across the AfD by chance.

--Dan Dassow (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

---

"Magpie Club" article Deletion

Could you please review the deletion of the "Magpie Club" article. If the article requires additional information I can update it. It is an independently notable coterie of the Collingwood Football Club. It should be included in Wikipedia and not deleted. user:tommyc --Tommyc (talk) 05:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Redirect of SPIN (sales)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on SPIN (sales), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because SPIN (sales) is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting SPIN (sales), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

John Hogan

I see from your user page that you are not new to the name page work, but am wondering about the chronological ordering on this page. Generally in dab pages (WP:MOSDAB) the order is by expected hits. Not that I have a clue what that order should be here, there may be some that do. I can see if it is not clear that chronological would be good (even better than alphabetical), but 1) it would probably be useful to have this discussed as part of a manual of style and 2) if you are choosing this way because there is not clear order otherwise, please say so in your edit summary. I'll be watching here should you just want to reply here. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies (and for trying to sort out the occasionally gray area between dab pages and name pages) - your goals and plan appear to me to be in the right direction. I think I will start a discussion in the dab community suggesting that should all things be equal on a name dab page (i.e. everyone equally likely to be the desired article subject), we use chronology - more useful than an alphabetical sort, which generally ends up being sorting by middle name! (John User:Jwy talk) 22:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge and transwiki

Could you merge and transwiki Ekkyklema and Eccyclema into Wikitionary? I think I've seen you do it once before somewhere. MBisanz ^talk 05:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Works for me, and now I have a nice how-to on my userpage to refer to. Thanks! MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Pinching ideas

Just thought I'd give the courtesy of letting you know I pinched this. I didn't think you'd mind, seeing as you pinched it yourself from someone else... -- Roleplayer (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion sorting

Hi there, what is the best way to add something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Subjects requesting deletion to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Deletion_sorting? --MPerel 02:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What a wonderfully thorough and helpful response, Ceyockey, thank you! : ) --MPerel 05:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Aliya-Jasmine Sovani

Thanks. I've been working on fixing up her page in my sand box http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliya-Jasmine_Sovani would like to know how to re-activate her page again. Jamierush (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)jamie

Python - Accidents Sketch, 2nd nom for deletion

Were you in favor of deletion or keeping?Kww (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Accidents_Sketch_%282nd_nomination%29 --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Eggology

Hello Ceyockey, The Eggology article, which I first put up, spent its first few days on the "articles for deletion" list. I see today that it has now been included among the WikiProject Companies. I am new to this. Does this mean that it will be allowed to stay, and not deleted? If so when will the "articles for deletion" tag come off the article's page? Thank you so much for your help. - Eileen Galen (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation of the process. Eileen Galen (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ceyockey, Regarding content and your help - thank you, and thank you for treating it as a teachable moment - I am learning, and appreciate your patience and work! ...71.32.250.29 (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Scrubbing bubbles home logo2.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Scrubbing bubbles home logo2.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

re:Poodlebug

Hey there Ceyockey, I noticed that you readded the Wiktionary tag to Poodlebug. Do you have an account at Wiktionary? My general feeling is that they are no more interested in neologisms than we are, and have a special page set up for exactly that. When you "search" for poodlebug on Wiktionary you receive this message and friendly warning. Are you sure it belongs there? Keeper | 76 22:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the explanation, that makes perfect sense. Off to Wikt it goes, and will likely land with a rather odorous thump on someone's back shed. It is a poodlebug after all. And, icing, I can call my day complete because I learnt something new today - I now can use sylph in a sentence. Cheers, :-) Keeper | 76 15:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

user subpage maintenance

Thank you for your edit to User:Ceyockey/Sandbox. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't much enjoy trespassing on other editors' userpages, even for necessary maintenance, so I'm glad you didn't mind too much. Cheers--ShelfSkewed Talk 18:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I award this Barnstar to you, Ceyockey, for lots of imaginative hard work – both visible and behind-the-scenes – on WikiProject Anthroponymy! - Fayenatic (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

peer review

I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that you definately earned this

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For all of your hard work in helping out the Anthroponomy project. Thank you for all your hard work and keep it up!!!! Remember (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Template

Oops. The first sixty or so multibanner templates were all portals, I guess I kind of drifted off... It won't happen again. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 02:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

By the End of Tonight

Thanks for that! I'd not come across {{Db-move}} before, should come in usefull (I guess that's why it was created). --JD554 (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Merging WikiProject

I think you can merge the inactive WikiProject music genres into WikiProject music since nobody objects you after a month. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Preview button before editing

Do you know how to use the preview button before recording an edit in Wikipedia? [2] --Edibility (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Portals

I'm sorry to be blunt about this, but I close TfD nominations. That's the only admin task I do on any sort of basis. I don't deal with what should be in articles, I just evaluate debates and remove what the community has decided should not be in them. The result of the debate was to remove such templates, there was no mention of replacing them with something else. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 01:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That edit was by mistake, I did hit 'ignore' on another Wikispace page, that was an honest mistake. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 01:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I canme off as a jerk, I really don't mean it. I don't know what you want me to reconsider, I removed a template per a consensus, I can't re-add it. I also have neither the time nor interest to add hundreds of portal links to articles which don't interest me. As a frequent TfD closer, most of my edits are to remove content from the encyclopedia, I remove infoboxes, navboxes, external links, and other things all the time, cross-links to portals fall under the same blanket. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 01:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess we are done. Please understand I am very sorry if I have been unhelpful, I would be more than happy to provide the portion of my contribution log which contains those articles. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 01:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:United Water companyWeb logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:United Water companyWeb logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:C3 logo absorptionsystems.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:C3 logo absorptionsystems.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:FisherScientific logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:FisherScientific logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Cover neuron vol47iss1 large.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Cover neuron vol47iss1 large.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please archive your talk page

Please archive your talk page. --65.78.214.254 (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

List of World War II MIAs

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article List of World War II MIAs, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Logo American Institute for Cancer Research Jan2006.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Logo American Institute for Cancer Research Jan2006.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Logo a current affair.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Logo a current affair.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Logo aar.png

Thank you for uploading Image:Logo aar.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of campus radio stations

I have nominated List of campus radio stations, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of campus radio stations. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Rtphokie (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Smith (surname)

Brilliant job - thanks! You'll have this ready for GA status in no time! bd2412 T 04:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

User:203.97.42.132

Hi. I saw that you blocked and then, because of the lack of very recent warning, unblocked this IP. I have reviewed the contributions and it seems clear to be that they are identical over the past few days, so the final warning given over the last few days should, in my opinion, be sufficient. I have therefore gone ahead and blocked (for 1 week, based upon the vandalism and blocking history). Just letting you know in case you have any concerns and would like to discuss. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice work!

It is easier for me to recognize nice work when I have done it -- following the 'what links here' around is something I consider to be nice work (interesting as well). Thank you :) -- carol (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Boloco

Hey Ceyocky, I wanted to ask you about the deletion of this page. Boloco is clearly a notable chain, it has several locations in the Northeast, and has received coverage in several reliable sources: [3] [4] [5]. I'll take it to DRV if you want, but I thought I'd ask you first. Thanks! GlassCobra 14:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion continues here ... --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

???

What was the point of the post on my talk page? -- JT^Holla! 01:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason for the template. I'm more than aware how AfD works; thanks though. -- JT^Holla! 12:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Would it make you feel better if I went back and copied and pasted what the guy above me said, because it sums my feelings up exactly, hence why I put what I put. -- JT^Holla! 01:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Bypassing what links here

Hi -- I saw your edit summary. Unless I'm mistaken, you can link like this and bypass the "What links here" functionality. Cheers. Haus^Talk 02:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Names articles

Hi, please see the following: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anthroponymy#No_manual_of_style_for_name_articles.3F. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm really sorry that my doubts expressed on that talk page seem to have terminated the progress that was being made on significant proposals. How can we get them moving again?

While I'm here, do you mind me asking why you created Pillai (surname) as a redirect to a single person rather than to Pillai? - Fayenatic (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Kamehameha

I left a response back here. Think a category is the best way to go at it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Luxcel Biosciences logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Luxcel Biosciences logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Logo plannedparenthood.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Logo plannedparenthood.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Anthroponymy assessment

Hi, I have replied to a discussion you started there some time ago. It's not a heated debate so I thought I will let you know. Yury Petrachenko (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Surnames and disambiguations

I've been reading Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Archive4. I was wondering if you might be interested in the discussion here? That is one of 5 discussions I started recently (I need to try and avoiding spreading the discussion out so much). You might be interested in those as well. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Carcharoth (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Foley (politician)

Thank you for deleting this as I requested. Could you please also Salt it, to prevent misguided moves such as the one I had to reverse? Thank you in advance. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Reunion place names

Hey! No worries about letting these AfDs play out if that's how editors want to handle it. Thanks for bringing this up. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Fairburn

Why do you feel this page should be split?
What do you think it should be split into?
(And this discussion should probably be on talk:fairburn ... )
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

-- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! .....Relax friend, we are just trying to have a healty discussion here -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 15:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Template:Anthroponymy v2

I see that you are experimenting with a new talk banner for Anthroponymy, {{Anthroponymy v2}}.

You might want to have a look at {{WPBannerMeta}} and see if you can base it on that if it meets your needs.

e.g.

{{WPBannerMeta
|PROJECT             = Anthroponymy
 |BANNER_NAME        = {{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}
 |small  = {{{small|}}}
 |nested = {{{nested|}}}
 |category={{{category|μ}}}
|IMAGE_LEFT          = WPanthroponymy.svg
|IMAGE_LEFT_LARGE    = 45px
|IMAGE_LEFT_SMALL    = 30px
|QUALITY_SCALE       = yes
 |class={{{class|}}}
|IMPORTANCE_SCALE    = yes
 |importance = {{{importance|}}}
|COMMENTS            = yes
|MAIN_TEXT           = This {{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|Wikipedia talk=project page|Image talk=image|Template talk=template|Help talk=help page|Category talk=category|#default=article}} falls within the scope of the '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy|Anthroponymy WikiProject]]''', a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of [[Anthroponymy]], the study of people's names.  This project is dedicated to creating uniform helpful encyclopedia quality articles on the [[surname]]s, [[family name]]s and [[nickname]]s of people. If you would like to participate, you can visit the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy|project page]], where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
}}

-- WOSlinker (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Babai

Can you give reasons for the suggested split of Babai? Leave a msg at Talk:Babai. Ta. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

split category

Just curious. I haven't been paying much attention and see that the "split category" is gone (or am I looking in the wrong spot?). What happened? (John User:Jwy talk) 19:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I couldn't find reference to it on your Project page. . . (John User:Jwy talk) 15:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Absorption Systems

A tag has been placed on Absorption Systems 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 company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. triwbe (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:WiktionaryAbbr

Template:WiktionaryAbbr has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Skittleys (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

User name

If you wish to list this at WP:UAA, please feel free to do so. I was convinced it was acceptable, if unwise. I am using my "non-admin" account right now, on vacation, so I can't do anything about it right now anyway. Bearian, a/k/a Bearian'sBooties (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Good faith

I'm commenting here, rather than at User talk:Jimbo online because it's going off on a tangent and that user doesn't need to be bombarded with random messages. I quote: however, when the editor chooses to write it as Jimbo[online] then I believe that is a deliberate attempt to deceive readers that Jimbo (Wales) is now online ( by WWGB (talk · contribs)). In no way is that assuming good faith. It is, in fact, assuming that the editor is deliberately trying to impersonate Jimbo Wales, when they as a user have tried to do nothing of the sort. That is assuming bad faith, and it is clear from the user's earlier comments on the same subject that all this approach is achieving is putting them on the defensive. -- role^player 12:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Re your comment, We've seen plenty of people who are surprised or offput by the rules and norms of behavior that exist here - yes, I'm one of them. I've been editing since 2003 (since 2006 with a username) and more than half of what goes on still goes totally over my head. -- role^player 12:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Quebec Founder Population

I have doubts about the validity of the infomercials you have used as source on this subject. Everything I have read on the subject does not say that 6,000,000 people trace their ancestry to 2,600 founders. I read about 6,500 (22%) out of ~30,000 French immigrants who are generally considered the founding population of Quebec.[6]. This ~30,000 is out of a total of ~36,000 immigrants (80%). I believe the confusion might come from the fact that the population databases possibly used by all these genetics labs are made out of a samples of "ascending genealogies" from the Registre de la population du Québec ancien (RPQA) and the BALSAC population register [7]. The 2,600 figure might have to do with these samples. It could be worth looking into.

Hoping to dispel some long-standing and widely spread myths about my compatriots, I started, a while ago, the project of writing an article on the "ethnic origins of Quebecers" Origines ethniques des Québécois. Unfortunately, I have yet to finish it and have not begun the translation of it to English. Still, as you can see in the French draft, I have reproduced the table of the pre-1760 immigration to Quebec. -- Mathieugp (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I must say I do not understand where the personal offence was. By "infomercials", I was (sarcastically) referring to the nature of the contents of the articles and their form, not the validity of the media themselves. Surely you must have noticed the corporate tone and corporate journalistic style of these articles. These kinds of .com news site often contain good info, but they also contain ad-sounding articles, where information is secondary and a pretext to interview some dude who will talk about how innovative his company is. I am sorry if you do not share my sarcasm.

And the reason I asked, and did not just modify your paragraph, is because I thought maybe you had other sources, or any leads so we can could clarify where the author of the article got his/her figures and provide the precision needed for greater accuracy, if the information can be found. My only concern is for not spreading awe-inspiring figures that often turn out to be not exactly true upon further research. I never said nor implied anything else. I do not question your competence, nor the quality of your encyclopaedic contributions here. You'll have to believe my word.

I do not think what you wrote is garbage. It appears to me as useful stuff and it seems to me to make sense to have something about this in the article on the demographics of Quebec.

Also, I never said I was going to write another article, I was pointing out the scholarly sources I have read while writing the draft article I linked. That draft was started 3 May 2007 at 01:17 and last modified 13 February 2008 at 17:48. The draft is not about population genetics: it is about history, a subject I feel more competent writing about than anything related to genes (except maybe my own genealogy tree, but it obviously does not belong in Wikipedia, in any language... ;-)

If you do not wish or simply cannot help me shed light on the possible source of the 2,600 -> 6,000,000 figures, then it will have to stay that way, because the sources I have, while they provide other figures, do not allow for the improvement I was hoping could be made. I am looking forward to your reply. -- Mathieugp (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

afd

To be frank, your removal of the prod tag from this page did puzzle me slightly. You can find the afd debate here. Letting you know just in case you want to comment/!vote. BanRay 20:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

{{oldprodfull}}

Hi. It appears that with this edit you "substed" the template. I'm not sure if there is any official policy regarding whether it should be substed or not, but normally I don't.--Rockfang (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was suggesting you insert it as a normal template. Without transcluding or subst'ing.--Rockfang (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That is indeed odd then. Normally, {{#switch:{{{1}}}|s=|-}}08{{#switch:{{{1}}}|s=|-}}24 doesn't show up when the template is transcluded. Oddly, noone has edited the template since the 17th? Any ideas?--Rockfang (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I may have narrowed the problem. I think you substed the "con" date as the template page suggests. I'm thinking either there is a bug with {{CurrentYYYYMMDD}}, or the subst suggestion on {{oldprodfull}} should be removed. I'll keep investigating.--Rockfang (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Aslim Taslam

"WP:Overcategorization is no basis for nominating an article for deletion."

Then maybe you should update this page WP:Deletion policy because it says otherwise. HD1986 (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Disambiguation pages in need of being split

I had trouble navigating back from the category page to the place you mention it in the split off page. And with all the article links on the main page, I'm wondering how useful the new page is - but I leave it to you! (John User:Jwy talk) 21:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Question about schools

I have a list over 200 strong, of just charter, middle, intermediate, elementary, and high schools, not to include academies and schools of the arts, but dont know how to organize them 'the right way' so it doesnt get nit-picked' and edited a thousand times. should i keep it to elementary, intermediate, middle, and high schools; or add 'academies' and 'schools of the arts' to the list of categories? SuzukaISichigo100% (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)