User talk:Matchups

Hello Matchups, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the place and decide to stick around.

Here are some useful tips for newcomers:

When posting on talk pages you can sign your posts by typing four tildes ~~~~
Have a look at the conventions for naming, style and uploading pictures
Follow the simplified ruleset
You might want to try the tutorial for advice on editing
If you need help, see the help pages and feel free to ask a question at the help desk
Eventually you might want to look through Wikipedia:Topical index
Remember to be bold in editing pages
Most importantly, have fun!

Flower party■ 02:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oberwiki

Hi there, you mentioned you're an Oberlin alum. I don't know if you've come across this but a little while ago I started a wiki site for Oberlin. The next time you're bored, visit http://oberwiki.net/ -- any contributions you feel like making would be greatly appreciated. —alxndr (t) 01:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Yeah, Quine was my grandfather. —alxndr (t) 20:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oberlin notable alumni list

I replied to your message regarding the above topic on my talk page. -- backburner001 18:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your request for feedback on Oberlin alumni. I say split the list to a separate page, shorten the list on the main page, with a "more..." link to the separate page. As I said on Oberlin's talk page, just do it. It can be improved later. dfrankow 15:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello; I noticed you created {{bridge-game-stub}} but I'm affraid that stubs don't work "the normal" way here at WP (don't worry, not much damage; I did that also once). The bottom line is, folks at WP:WSS are in charge for approval of new stubs, and the minimal number for a new category is around 60; bridge-stubs so don't qualify. Please don't continue to add the template for the time being, and I'll see with them what to do about it. Sorry for inconvenience. Duja 21:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am interested; however, several stubs I created (particularly in Category:Bridge players) never got past being stubs (so I stopped adding them), and I and few other editors expanded several others (so, there are less bridge stubs than it used to be). If you create few dozen more... :-). Duja 22:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for amending the list. I see you added Cross-IMPs and Butler IMPs to the list of suggested articles. I'd like to discuss it with you before you start, just to make sure that we understand each other.
The material already exists at Duplicate bridge#Scoring. It is not very thorough though, so larger articles can be extracted as {{tl:main}}. But then, you also have to add a thorough article about Matchpoint scoring, (which can get fairly complicated with Neuberg formula etc). So, they're not exactly red links. Duja 14:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

My apologies - mixed you up with another user. Keep up the good work.

Ghostbusters

Hello. I am interested in reading a copy of your article "Ghostbusters", but I cannot seem to find it anywhere. if you can please send me an email at avi.lipton@senecac.on.ca it would be much appreciated.

John Wray

Hi. Re your edit, please note that our policy on disambiguation pages is not to "prettify" links but to show them as they are. -- Necrothesp 17:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. No problem with removing redundancy. As to Paul Russell, I've edited the page to show what I think is the best way to do it without piping. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 18:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rugrats help from the Help Desk

Thanks for your advice over on the Help Desk regarding Rugrats episodes; I think I'll choose your model and simply say that I'll be listing the rest for deletion if the debate succeeds. Case precedent, as they say in court. ^_^ CNash 22:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPL category

I like the NPL category. I noticed that some (not all) of the names on the category page were alphabetized by first name (all but Will); I added a few more by hand but alph'ed them by last name. I can't figure out how to change the info on the Emily/Eric/Francis pages because the category isn't showing up on the edit page (maybe this is a feature of the template; I don't know how those work). Could you re-alph them by last name? Thanks! Qaqaq 15:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question: I don't reconcile them. I've changed my mind; I think Selinker has it precisely right. Qaqaq (talk) 05:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply

I replied to your question at the help desk. ---J.S ^(T/C) 05:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sections

From my talk page:

I noticed that you had moved a couple of {{sections}} tags from article pages to talk pages. Editorial suggestion templates normally go on the main article page, and the discussion page for that template specifically notes this as proper practice. I've moved a couple back, and more importantly am starting to address the backlog and actually add section headers. Matchups 03:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree this sort of cruft should go on the talk page. If the editorial notice is also information that a reader would find useful (for example {{unreferenced}}) then fine it can go on the article page. But talk pages are there for a reason and issues which are only editorial should go there. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FutharkRed Reply

Thanks for the earlier message, and a happy new year to yourself. 2007 will hit here (NYC) in another 15 minutes or so.

I'm new to editing here (3 days?) as well as to bridge itself. In trying to learn the game, I came across the 'Contract bridge glossary' here, and was frustrated when using the internal links. Having some experience at web page coding, I therefore redid them so they would point directly to their target terms (rather than initial letters only). Unfortunately, I did all this in XHTML, not realizing that Wikipedia has its own methods.

Having learned a bit of Wiki-editing now, I've gone through most of the article, specifying internal links as well as emboldening (?) (making bold) those which lead to other articles. This has required editing the article as a whole, naturally, given the interconnection of the links. I use NoteTab Pro, which speeds up the process considerably. Also, since my internet connection won't go to DSL for a few days, it's faster to edit a copy of the text offline, and then replace as a whole.

The only content change, as yet, other than rewording the explanation of 'bold links-->external pages', is an added one-sentence definition for Blackwood convention, with link to that article. It's the only convention I know yet by name, and was surprisingly absent (though mentioned often in the text)!

Aside from being more convenient for the users, I think this linking method may obviate the need to break up the article, whose size we're reminded of (156 KBs?) every time we sign in to edit it. It certainly should end the notion of a separate page for each letter (is that really how the The Bridge World does it?) It's bad enough doing that within a page, let alone between dozens of them, for brief definitions. And while I may be zooming along in broadband this coming year, I don't forget my roots in dialup, which many readers stiil use.

I'd like to continue with this project, more with such work as this than with matters of content. (My main value there is that of anyone ignorant, useful for measuring clarity of explanation.) I have a degree in English, for what that may be worth, and some skill at this sort of encoding. I've also got some basic knowledge of some 5 or 6 other languages, which might (again in this limited capacity) make it possible to help with other parts of this project.

And I'm bound to learn something about bridge along the way!

I hope to finish this work on the glossary in the next day or two, without leaving too many dangling participles and links, and would be glad to hear of any such work you'd like to get done.

Also, as I'm sure is evident, I have no idea on the most basic things, including whether this is even the way to 'leave a message on your page', as per your note to me. Where should we put our thoughts on the bridge project in general, the glossary in particular, and so forth ... and how do we do it? (The glossary 'Discussion' was last used about 9 weeks ago.) Any help you can give me with that sort of thing will be greatly appreciated.

This is certainly long enough for now, I'll save any half-baked notions on the project until I've actually looked and thought a good bit more. Though, as in Mark Twain's The Awful German Language, that may not be too long!

FutharkRed 04:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your remarks.. OttomanReference 17:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion tag on Callum Hurley

hey, just an FYI, it's possible to use {{db-attack}} instead of {{db|personal attack}}, I fixed it for you :) -Painezor 17:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NUC

Thank you for letting me know that you removed the bold typeface from the two entries I left at NUC. In my defense, the no-need-to-emphasize-disambiguating-entries policy was only added five months after I began editing, and was probably still not in common practice when I changed NUC from a redirect, as I probably took the form of the disambiguation page from another TLA page, such as LEP (disambiguation).

By the way, please sign your entries, and please tell victims of your corrections exactly what their offense was; I had to study the disambiguation style guide and my own diff for fifteen minutes in order to determine the reason you singled me out and that you were not flame-worthy. Note that none of the points you mentioned in particular apply to my diff.

↪ (AllanBz ✍) 16:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Felix

_ _ What i expected, & what i find with my Firefox browser, is that the lower-casing (of at least the second word) prevents the section name in the URL from being recognized as matching that on the page, with the result that following the lk puts the top of the page at the top of the main pane of the browser window, with the "Felix" names off-screen and scrolling or use of the ToC needed to view them. But with the upper-casing, the appropriate heading is recognized & is positioned at the top of the pane, and since the section has been kept shorter than my main-pane height (via subdivision as needed), the Felix names are on screen (for typical font sizes and tool-bar complements).
_ _ BTW, lks into the LoPbN tree are not "set and forget", but subject to maintenance: if your interest in the page is long-term, you may want to watch for further subdivision of that section. When enuf Fela... to Feli... entries show up, that section will cease to exist and those names may be in a section headed "Feld - Feli", "Fele - Feli", or "Feli" -- or with re-subdivision, possibly something like "Fele - Felo", with the same expected effect as the lower-casing. And of course (tho unlikely in the immediate future) the List of people by name: Fe page could conceivably be subdivided, so that the page lk'd becomes devoid of entries, the Felixes move to List of people by name: Fel, or to List of people by name: Fea-Feq or the like, and the user has to lk to a different page after following the lk.
--Jerzy•t 05:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stern Fan Network

I thought fan sites were not allowed on Wikipedia per the rules. But you questioned my removal of the article for Stern Fan Network a fan site. Can you please help me with the deletion of that article as I am not familiar with the process and you seem to be more knowledgable. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobdavis4 (talk • contribs) 21:42, April 4, 2007.

Comment about edit to Paul Byrd page

FYI ... I made a comment about your addition to the Paul Byrd article on the talk page (how do you wikilink to a talk page?). --Sanfranman59 06:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip about linking to a talk page. I thought I'd tried that syntax, but I guess not. I added another comment the the Byrd talk page. --Sanfranman59 18:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banned user

Hello. Thanks for your query about the revert I made. This is a long an complicated story, so I'll try and keep it short. Light current (talk · contribs) is a banned user who trolls the Ref Desk on a daily basis from different non-static IPs in the 88.100.* to 88.112.* range. Those familiar with his MO can spot his edits pretty easily, as they are usually puns or jokes and are in concert with his "friends" (other editors who humour him). On the rare occasion when the comment is actually constructive, it can be more difficult to be sure it is him and not some other user from the same ISP. Those I tend to leave alone. The one you mentioned was easy as it starts, "As the person who originally proposed having... some guidelines for the reference desks...". Light current was involved in the early stages of the proposal. Rockpocket 01:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to a previous deletion

Matchups,
A while ago, (March) you put up a speedy deletion tag on an article (Raketu, currently not an article) that I made. I was a little flustered, so I never responded. Of course, I realize now why the article didn't make the cut, and I wanted to thank you for being bold and doing the right thing.
Thanks again, Gak Blimby 17:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was just wondering if my site was alright now.I worked really hard on it,to be honest I'm not a big computer person, so the BAM site took me like three hours. If you have any suggestions, PLEASE let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Browneatmidnight (talk • contribs) 04:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ERRORS

Try WP:ERRORS. --74.14.22.104 15:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Haunted Angel 2

I could be grasping at straws here, but there is an anonymous user on that page that signed as you. Since you haven't participated in an RfA since April, I've been wondering if that is really you, or if it's somebody impersonating you? Please reply on my talk page or the RfA. east.718 at 02:10, 11/2/2007

No problem. I was just worried that somebody might have been trying to pass themselves off as you. east.718 at 03:21, 11/3/2007

Silliness

I blocked him for a peculiar time because... well, he was user:W.X.Y.Z, and I blocked him for W days, X hours, Y minutes, and Z seconds. I blocked him because he deserved it, and I blocked him for that amount of time because I felt like it.

Good enough? DS (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting biographies

Aak. You're right. I don't have any 3rd party sources for Romapada. But I am trying to find one- I am getting a book soon that may provide this information. So please give me some mercy! David G Brault (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --El on ka 04:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hangman

Agreed, that is a pretty bad disambiguation line. It doesn't hurt to link to the hangman disambiguation page, though, so I've just changed it to a simple main-disambiguation link. --McGeddon (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIV, etc.

Hi! Just explaining my reasoning for removing your AIV report here. Basically, that editor is using a dynamic IP address; these kinds of addresses change hands frequently, and so any previous warnings are likely to not reach the intended ears. I removed the report because the IP hadn't been warned sufficiently. Hope that makes sense, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 04:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PROD for "The Little Cars"

1. It's on Amazon 2. The Brazilian Government feared possible lawsuits regarding this 3. I bet I can find it on Yahoo! movies too Sorry, but ripoff movies are also notable WhisperToMe (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However I do NOT mind merging The Little Cars in the Great Race into The Little Cars... WhisperToMe (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can find it on the New York Times - As I said, the Brazilian Government feared that it could bring lawsuits. I am sure I can find more information. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, found it on NYT, and a writer for The Portland Mercury criticized the series for being a ripoff of Cars. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll post inquiries at the Brazil Wikiproject about this - Even though I feel like I have enough now for the articles to stand, I want MORE discussion in newspapers etc. noted. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Gifts

Thanks for the COI heads-up on this one. You may wish to comment on the AfD [1] Qworty (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Yeah, that's a bug with AWB. How it works is that it shows you a preview diff before it commits it, and you can cancel any changes before posting... but it still puts the cancelled changes in the edit summary. So, like in this case, it wanted to replace every instance of "Millon" with "Million", which is normally the right thing to do, but obviously on that article "Millon" was correct. So I cancelled all those proposed edits but it still claimed to do them. Hope that makes sense. I should probably bug the AWB guys about this, but I imagine they already know.—Chowbok ☠ 03:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out it is indeed a known bug.—Chowbok ☠ 18:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Brandon Moss

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

Camanda (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Muffin Man

I am baffled as to why you reverted The Muffin Man after my recent edits. Your edit summary was "Rv good faith efforts which, IMHO, do not improve the accuracy and encyclopedic content of the article." My edits consisted of

reverting joke vandalism that had somehow been overlooked by six editors
consolidating a verbatim account of the Shrek scene into a descriptive paragraph
moving a statement about the original rhyme from the popular culture section and incorporating it into a more appropriate part of the article.

According to Wikipedia policy, where possible it is better to manually edit an article than to revert it to an older version. This is a prime example. By undoing my edits, you put vandalism back in place. Even when you removed the most obvious paragraph of it, you left inaccuracies in quoted, sourced material. The revert also put the sentence about the Essex lyrics back in the popular culture section and brought back an instance of awkward punctuation. Also, I had properly formatted the rhyme itself; now all the lines are scrunched into one with extra space below.

Given these concerns, I hope you do not mind my reverting the page back to my last edits. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mikado yellow

→

Whoops

I typically haven't made much of an edit summary description on changes like that. Sorry. I'll do so in the future.MichaelProcton (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Propp

Hi Matchups! I've taken the liberty of following your suggestion and creating the Jim Propp article from my own knowledge; I see his name regularly. I also touched up your reference at Ghost (game). Would appreciate it if you could add any references and new data to Propp before the vultures start circling. God bless! JJB 19:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruth-Aaron pair

I have reverted you.[2] The infinitude is an open problem according to for example http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Ruth-AaronPair.html and http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_08_07_05.html. Do you have a reference to an actual proof by Erdõs and not just somebody making an unreferenced claim that he proved it? I (Jens Kruse Andersen) found the largest known pair at 3109 digits [3] and would like to know whether infinitude has really been proved. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Red Sox

Thanks for noticing the cleanup. As for the leading zeroes on the sports averages, please read my summary about the changes. I stated that several of the changes done by the script needed top be fixed by hand.

As a life long Sox fan, I am well aware of the notation format of sports averages, unfortunately the java script program I used is not as well versed in sports structures. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 03:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I had to skip off to work and could not get to it at that moment, I intended to fix them afterwords, but you got to them to first. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 03:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concordia

You closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Concordia and it says that WP:CCD and WP:CONCORD were deleted. Actually, they remain as redirects to the historical main Concordia page. The MfD page says "Don't change." Is it nonetheless okay to make this minor correction? If it makes any difference, the CCD shortcut is used in hundreds of pages; the longer one in just a few. Ma^t_chups 02:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A recent change in the software has made every [[WP:xxxx]] a redirect to [[Wikipedia:xxxx]] even if the page doesn't exist (e.g. WP:ThisCertainlyIsNotAValidPage), so that's why those show as non-deleted. Mainspace: pages can no longer be started with the characters "wp:". Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 03:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just went back and deleted Wikipedia:CCD and Wikipedia:CONCORD (that housed redirects) based on the original MFD. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 836 (number)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article 836 (number), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Original research

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Nuttah (talk) 10:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Collation edit

No problem. Don't worry, everyone does it. ;) Green caterpillar (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ROI copyvio

The ROI have used the wiki text, not the other way round.[4] Ty 19:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RD Wikiquette

Regarding this post: The Reference Desk guidelines request "Don't add wikilinks to a question or the title; it may unduly suggest to others that the questioner was aware of the Wikipedia articles. Instead, if relevant, just include these links in your response.". I realize that this particular instance is unlikely to cause confusion or offense; this is just a friendly reminder for the future. Thank you for your help on the Reference Desk. – 74 15:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE : CCCP

I merged it off CCCP, this version of the article as I was moving it to the article's full name. Unfortunately I am unable to confirm this information, so you'll have to look for the editor that added this term in CCCP's article history. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 14:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

An illegally recreated article you voted to delete [5] is again up for AfD. here Regards, Wikid ^as© 13:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your question

I would suggest contacting User:Tim Starling, that is possibly who was the intended recipient, and at any rate he should be able to answer your question based on his posted status at mediawiki. Sswonk (talk) 04:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

from: Allen4names

If you want to leave a message for me as you did for Joe Chill you may do so on my talk page or here as you like. -- allen四names 04:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

What's wrong with those comments? Established users use those comments all of the time and no one bothers to tell them that they shouldn't say that. Joe Chill (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to attack the editor. Joe Chill (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frugal number

I see on your user page that you made oeis:A157425. If you don't know already, you might be interested that Frugal number is about the subsequence oeis:A046759. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, a lot will depend on the rules. 7# = 210 and 11# = 2310 are not in A157425 but primorial is not a common notation to most people (I use it all the time and probably have hundreds at my website).

In 2006 I computed all Ruth–Aaron pairs below 10^11 but didn't publish them. There are 536 pairs of both types that are not square-free. My example is the smallest pair but saying so could be seen as original research. Maybe I should submit the sequence to OEIS.

A solution to your question: (2, 3) with sum 1 ;-) Maybe it is the only solution. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self-reference and vanity

Hi Matchups, I reverted this edit of yours. To avoid misunderstandings: I know that the song contains the quoted line. It's just a problematic as an example of self-reference, as the primary reference is to a person's thoughts. If you want a good example of a song referencing itself, try PIL's ditty, though there are bound to be lots of others, some of them presumably even better. If you want to keep Simon's song, we absolutely need at least one solid reference discussing the self-referential aspects of the song. Merry X-mas. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Stoneman

Hi, I've restored Dorothy Stoneman per your offer to add references. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Imput

Hi, I do not understand your request. The entire text of the page was " ==Not To Delete== Do not delete this article." Imput and Input are the same. There is nothing substantive to re-create; there was no debate. What do you want me to do? You may challenge my decision at WP:DRV. Bearian (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Eric Albert

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Eric Albert. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Albert. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect games spoiled by the 27th batter

That is the title of the section where that poor edit was made. The first sentence of the section reads, "On ten occasions in Major League Baseball history, a perfect game has been spoiled when the batter representing what would have been the third and final out in the ninth inning reached base." Every preceding entry in the section describes the action of the 27th batter without redundantly articulating that it is the action of the 27th batter being described. If for some reason, this last entry in a series of ten suddenly requires that redundancy, you're going to need to explain that, because it strikes me as an obvious boner.—DCGeist (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The October 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive is about to begin!

Deleted this notice and appreciation followup, as unfortunately I didn't see the notice in time to help :-( Hopefully in December! Ma^t_chups 18:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to the December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive

Hi there! I thought you might be interested in the December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We're currently recruiting help to clear a massive backlog (22,000+ articles), and we need your help! Participants in the drive will receive barnstars for their contributions! If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!

Ⓢock 00:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Longevity COI

A discussion about longevity WP:COI has been initiated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People#End COI. As a recent contributor to this page, your comments are solicited. JJB 20:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive is about to begin!

Get ready.

The December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive is about to begin. Prep your keyboards, as the drive aims to wikify over 2,000 articles this month. We're going to need all the firepower we can get, so please get your friends to join up as well. In case you didn't know, wikification is fairly simple: just add wiki markup, links, and similar ". Thanks for joining; we're looking forward to an exciting time this month!

Regards,

Ancient Apparition (talk · contribs), Mono (talk · contribs), Nolelover (talk · contribs), and Sumsum2010 (talk · contribs).

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wikiproject Wikify at 00:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Next drive

As you are either a participant of WikiProject or the October wikification drive or have signed up to participate in the planned December drive, this probably concerns you. Discussions that have been inactive for a couple weeks regarding the December drive have been reactivated, and we would like you to participate in these discussions, and also consider joining the December drive. We have taken upon ourselves a massive workload, encompassing a backlog reaching June 2008 and comprising 0 articles. Barnstars will be awarded to participating editors, and also, please invite your friends to join! Please do not reply to this message here. Either reply here, here or here.

For the December Drive Coordinators, WikiCopter (talk · contribs).

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 23:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comments about me

Let's review one of your insinuations about me here:

I removed Joannes Goossenaerts from the list because at the time he had not been validated either by Louis Epstein or the GRG. The editor had cited a report from when he was (before the fact) allegedly 109; the report was published on 31 October 2009. Per WP:V, the report which I have reviewed already, IS reliable in that Joannes Goossenaerts did celebrate a claimed 109th birthday. It is NOT reliable in naming him as a verified 110-year-old; the list to which he was added is only for verified men over 110. Internet Reports are decidedly NOT proof of age. In addition, evidence needed to be found that Goossenaerts did indeed reach 110 (did he die at 109 years 364 days?) The editor responsible thought that if Goossenaerts was 109 "last year", it meant that he would now be 110, which is untrue and pure trash. Please think. → Brendan (talk, contribs) 10:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that JG could have died at 109. Is my talk page the place to make that point for the first time, or should the edit comment have said No evidence that JG is still alive since last year. More informative and also civil. Regarding the reliability of the source, it appears to be allowed by WP:RS. My understanding is that there is some controversy about the Longevity project's own rules on reliability; in any case, it should not be assumed that the poster was familiar with them. I see no reason not to WP:AGF on that edit. Do you want the poster to improve and be helpful to the project, or to drive him away? Ma^t_chups 11:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you were polite, I will be: The definition of a supercentenarian is given in the first paragraph of that page, and the JG source did not facilitate that. At all. "A supercentenarian is considered 'verified' if his or her claim has been validated by an international body that specifically deals in longevity research, such as the Gerontology Research Group and Guinness World Records.". There you go... → Brendan (talk, contribs) 07:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge Base article

Hi,

Thank you for reviewing the BBI article on Wiki. I am brand new to editing on Wiki so i wasn't able to figure out how to submit logo properly. However it is our new logo and we are trying to update our info on all sites that link to us. Sorry about the promotional stuff, i wasn't trying to spam, just to introduce the new Bridge Bingo game on BBO.

We need to create separate article about Bridge Base the gaming site. BBI is Fred's software company and right now it is separated from BBO as a business.

Until that happens, will you please help me submit the logo? What do I need to show it is our own trade mark? I cannot say it is "my" work because i did not create it.

Thanks a lot. Diana Eveline Serban Bridge Base Online Diana eva (talk) 11:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frank W. Lewis

I see this was on your to-do list, but I beat you to it, sorry! Feel free to add to and improve upon it! Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of fictional salespeople for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of fictional salespeople 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/List of fictional salespeople 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. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 23:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-descriptive edit summary

Your recent edit at Socially responsible investing used an incorrect edit description. Changing a dash to an em dash and adding a sentence to the article is not "Removed non-encyclopedic and unneeded term. Corrected dash." I have removed the unsourced sentence. Feel free to re-add it with a citation to support it or an accurate edit summary explaining it. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I appreciate the concern about the talk page. The reason I say to not leave messages about articles on my talk page is that if someone wants to discuss or debate an edit, the appropriate place is on the talk page of the article, so everyone can have a voice. People can, and do, leave msgs on my talk page, such as yours. I don't have an issue with these, since they are not related to a particular article, which get addressed and cleared. I just don't want it to be a place for debating content, away from the content itself. I've managed over 11k edits over the last 5 years, but I'm just too busy in the real world to get involved in the politics here, again. This is why I avoid any committees or sub-groups around here. I do watch the pages of many articles. Not all that I have edited, but enough to be useful to Wikipedia. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orpie

2 people already voiced their opinions. The AfD is there and I clicked on the link from the article which brought me there also. SL93 (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Matchups. You have new messages at Jac16888's talk page.
Message added 18:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jac16888 ^Talk 18:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Soledad Mexia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Soledad Mexia 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/Soledad Mexia (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article. — JFG ^talk 16:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Mosdab

Template:Mosdab has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ^{[Username Needed]} 11:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]