User talk:Alvestrand/Archive4

This archive should start around November 9 (due to an overlap in a section)

John DeFrancis

I'm refactoring the stuff that User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ puts here into a single section.

John DeFrancis= OWNED and PAwned by me

i have a good reason why john defrancis is wrong, chinese has a massive amount of homophones per sound, but they are written in different characters, if you were to get rid of them, then you cant tell the difference between the words "bright", and dark, which are BOTH pronounced míng, yet written with different characters, 冥 and 眀 see this for proof:[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.138.17 (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ. --Alvestrand (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

regardless, i still pawned both john defrancis AND you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.143.217 (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

the rule only says you get to block me, not blank my contributions. it doesnt say " i dont get to make changes here", plus it says right in the article that DeFrancis says ideographic writing is impossible. and in your book review too..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.247.92 (talk) 07:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

now, what would be the point in blocking someone if he is then allowed to make edits from another account? That's called sockpuppetry, and that's why you were blocked in the first place. I'm being liberal in not reverting edits you did to talkpages. (btw, "pawned" usually means "given away as security for a loan of money"). --Alvestrand (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

WRONG. i was blocked for HARRASMENT, not SOCKPUPPETRY OWNED

i had sockpuppets before i was blocked, but only started to abuse them after i was blocked for "harrasment". and if you check my edit record, all i did was place a sockpuppet template on someones talk page, just like that person did to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.79.137 (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

and considering the fact that my talk page is indef blocked, i cant request unblock....

I've heard that there is this ancient technology around called "email".... seriously, if you go on being insulting, abusive and aggressive like you've demonstrated here, there's not much use in asking. --Alvestrand (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The Chinese language

You're welcome :). It seems that Chinese guy has a hidden political agenda, and intends to make up a "Rebuttal" section as a way to assign the Chinese language (and the writing system) the status of a "special language", a language with great properties that set it apart from all the other languages of the planet.

I do not know anything about Chinese -- I am just a curious reader about languages in general --, so I can't say whether professor John DeFrancis' opinions are academically criticizable, but I do not like when people (like that Chinese guy) use Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote hidden political agendas. That is why I have reverted the edits of that Chinese guy. --Antonielly (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

WRONG. almost every single sound in chinese has over a dozen homophones, with few exceptions. this is not engilsh, antonielly. maybe you should stop drinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.79.137 (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

since when did i say chinese was a special language? OWNED OWNED OWNED OWNED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.79.137 (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems that Chinese guy has a hidden political agenda, and intends to make up a "Rebuttal" section as a way to assign the Chinese language (and the writing system) the status of a "special language",

there is no single chinese language. therefore how can i be promoting it? OWNED

i was not blocked for suckppetry liar

see the block log again. you may have been hallucinating after eating that mushroom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.143.232 (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Then why does your user page say so? --Alvestrand (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

i dont know, i didnt put it up.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.155.111 (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess someone put it up after your other sockpuppets were discovered. Sigh. --Alvestrand (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

WRONG, i started abusing them AFTER i was blocked...... lets talk about tis on your norwegian accont talk page, i dont have any editing history or blaocking history on there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.74.182 (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

havent you thought of a way to stop my edits? did you realize you could stop my edits by semi protecting the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.161.134 (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

it's much more fun watching you record all your IP blocks. Pretty cold in New York today, isn't it? --Alvestrand (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

nope. online weather sources arent reliable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.144.147 (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

you havent responded about the homophones —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.136.35 (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't respond on matters of content with a blocked user on English Wikipedia. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

and all i was blocked for was placing a sockpuppet template on someones talk page.... you claim i was blocked for sockpuppetry, and then "incivility".

Incivility constitutes putting a sockpuppet template on someones talk page? also my block log records nothing of sockpuppetry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.176.100 (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I was too kind. The block message said "(Personal attacks or harassment: blocked until reasonable answer for recent actions can be provided)" - with the previous one being "‎(Disruptive editing: account only for nationalist provocations)". --Alvestrand (talk) 07:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

you know what ill stop because this isnt fun. i will return to regular vandalism i.e. targeting random pages, redirecting them and inserting text into them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.245.92 (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

What the...?

Who do you think you are factoring me out on a deletion page? And inspiring a topic ban for me, when I did not break any rules (I copy pasted existing text from the Gordium article to the siege page, I DID NOT make anything up), your trying my patience. Give a good response on my page! Thanks...--Ariobarza (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza

I don't know anything about a topic ban. Your habit of trying to fill up AfD pages with cruft is damaging to the process of AfD, damaging to your own reputation, and damaging to any chance of making the article survive. I'm trying to reduce the amount of damage you do in all 3 areas, without censoring you in any way. Try to understand instead of yelling; it usually is more effective in achieving your aims. --Alvestrand (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"Actions speak louder than (capital) words"

Sigh, okay here I go, firstly, please talk to Ev, and tell him/her to come back to reality. Secondly, though I do not care now, I got blocked for incivility, but I did not neccessarily break any rules. The only problem I have with that is because it stained my record on Wikipedia (there was a similar case in the ANI page about someone getting blocked for line in a straightforward comment). Please do not be in denial, being blocked for an opinion is not right, the truth was told [kindly implied] (to one person). I am sorry however it offended you, and that is not what I wanted.

[[[But currently, I will tell you a secret now, your welcomed to canvass this on to ChrisO. I am GaThErInG a list of so called sins similar to what a certain user had for me on my ANI page that I was later blocked for. I do not want to further this dispute I have with a certain user. I want to end it, because, to tell you the truth (though I have made mistakes too) I am at a breaking point. I will decide this once and for all with comparison of FACTS on the ANI page, and upon seeing the truth, it will be hard for anyone to not to realize it. The end.]]]

As you can see, I do not have an issue with you. I was civil in the begining. But labeling, calling names, incivility, and threats ON ME, (plus my own ravings) led to a block. Therefore I know now how things are run here. Welcome to the real world, robots now rule.

Really think about this one, before responding on my page...--Ariobarza (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza

It's good that you understand that your own "ravings" were a reason for your block. It gives me a little bit of hope for you. I do not think that you will get anywhere with trying to push the blame onto others, and the attempt will hurt you. And as always - accusations that are not accompanied by documentation carry no more weight than article edits unaccompanied by documentation. Sometimes less. --Alvestrand (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Unwise

Hi, please do not forget why ChrisO's page about Persians are problems went to the ANI. As I have told him before, if he does not update his list, then two actions will be taken. I am afraid I have to be strict too. I will make a list of my OWN (notice OWN means when someone thinks they own articles, therefore they spend hours making a list of "Persian Problems" to take care of them) Persian problems page that is UPDATED. I knew this was going to happen, when I went to edit the page I thought it was an open userspace, because I made improvements I to those articles in question, I updated his page with the latest revisions, and welcomed him to verify if what I was saying was the truth or not the truth. He promised he would remove names, and revise his page, HE HAS DONE NONE. Therefore, people that go to his page, think certain articles should be destroyed, then they will be surprised when all the problems were fixed. You see its these little things you let ChrisO get away with, but I am an exception. This is what I feel Alvestrand, every time I reach a breakthrough, you just seem to burry me deeper, deeper, deeper... It's like you were set up to patrol or keep me in check (maybe because your the Blocker). Therefore I am worried. I remember one time I used another IP address to edit when I was blocked (this is why my block got doubled), and they tried to track me down to my exact location. I'm getting the Hebe-Jebees mate.--Ariobarza (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza

You're burying yourself. The reason your articles get deleted is not because of ChrisO, it's because they don't satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Understand these criteria, and you may have a case. --Alvestrand (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

When was this about deleted articles (that I am improving in my userspace)? All I am saying is not to make fun of user, which has produced an insufficient article. And that he should update that page, when I and or others update the articles in question. I did not make this personal from the begining, I was dragged into the mud. And, if time gives, will end this soon (peacefully with procedure and the rule of law), so we can all get back to our lives. And awaken from this 3 month nightmare that has ingulfed the topics sorounding the Persian Gulf. Furthermore, my lack of experience plus inclusion problems are to blame, that is why ancient battles are in another world when it comes to inclusion, some battles, no matter how real they were CANNOT satisfy new added revisionist rules for inclusion, its a simple fact. And before retiring from Wikipedia, I will make this known to the highest office of this website, so they can update the rules for our future generations sake, especially for topics that have certain cercuimstances or special needs attached to them. The end. {credits-rising}. ByE.--Ariobarza (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

If you refrain from the diatribes, threats and claims of personal persecution whenever an article you started and was unable to bring to enough quality to let it remain get deleted, you will get along with other people better. Ancient battles are no different from ancient animals - Wikipedia can document the evidence, if reasonably trustworthy evidence exists, but cannot and should not do more than that. Your conspiracy theories are fantasy. --Alvestrand (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I solemnly agree, lets just keep the stuff in one way, fair and balanced matter. As for conspiracy theories, I haven't gone that far, so please do not coin a new phrase for my responces. Greatly appreciates advice.--Ariobarza (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Sami Yusuf

Dear Alvestrand,

Please provide reasons why you think the reference is not valid. Sami, is talking in the interview and you can hear English words spoken by him and if any doubt,you can check with any Persian native to translate the interviewer words. That is a very recent interview and he clearly says Iran is his country. Please not that Wikipedia is all about evidence and not what we think. Regards, Persian Magi (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The reference is not in English. There are other references (including valid communication directly from the subject) that indicates his preference. When references are of a contradictory nature, we list what there is a consensus on: That his parents were Azeri and that he was born in Teheran. --Alvestrand (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I can hear his English in the interview. He is talking in English and a translator voice is there. I actually cited his English words and normally do not trust translations. By the way, is there any link to the email you mentioned? Is it public knowledge and verifiable? Persian Magi (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

User Page update

thanks for the reminder - did one update recently and just forgot to add the current job :( Going over to update it now... Skier Dude (talk) 05:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Belsky

Hi, it probably really has been years since i noticed us crossing paths!
Yes, Belsky needs to be something other than a Rdr. (But i was a little vague abt what title i had moved from, and thus surprised to find it already such a familiar-feeling Dab when i got to it!)

1. I created a Belsky family Dab with similar content, except i had created two more pages for a micro-stub and a more typical stub as its targets.
2. I have retagged your Belsky stub, per my understanding that while {{hndis}} and {{given name}} often overlap (bcz of people whose g-n is their whole name), {{hndis}} is quite a different concept from {{surname}}.
3. I understand surname page standards to be much looser than hndis & Dab ones, so i didn't seriously consider an early Dab-CU on Belsky, and what misgivings i have for the long run are more about better lks being available than "what such pages should look like".
4. However, Anderson (surname) is more along the lines of what i had in mind for either Belsky or Belsky (surname) to look like (the choice of title depending on whether or not "Belsky" is also the name of a skiing or skating move, two companies, a couple of titles of works, a metro station, and a unit of measure). I picture both a list of people with the surname, and a list of notable families with the surname (as we know of three). Would someone expanding it in that direction step on your toes?

Nice to be reminded of you, and hope i find you well.
--Jerzy•t 08:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - {{surname}} is what Belsky needs to be tagged with. I did not remember what it was called when I tagged it. When there turns up stuff called Belsky that is not a person, that's the time for splitting off the surname - I don't like having too many pages pointing at each oter. Not a problem with actually listing the people on the page too - I would imagine that as being ** under the primary * bullets for the families.

Well met again! --Alvestrand (talk) 09:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I like knowledge that you reconstruct a path to, when you need it, instead of trying to remember it.

1. Go to a Dab page; at the bottom, follow its lk to Category:Disambiguation pages.
2. Its only parent is Category:Disambiguation; follow that lk further up the Cat DAG.
3. (Probably i am the most frequent viewer there: i look at least daily for new pages, which show up one or two at a time, and are always pages that need {{Dab}}, or occasionally its siblings, instead!) What you want is one of its subcats, Category:Disambiguation and redirection templates, which lists -- Omigod -- 101 templates, most of which i've never seen used.

Yes, and thank you for saying that abt the order: i was ready to default to "the stuff i'm used to doing, in its usual order, and then this unusual thing just before the closing tags". But the families are few, each of them provides info for several people, and what it may not have occurred to the user to expect goes fruitfully where they'll see it without looking for it. I'll have to take a look at what i did with Mellon!
--Jerzy•t 18:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Gavin.collins, notability, D&D, etc

The problem is that even though Wikipedia does not hold some time limit for things to get done, Gavin does, and has in the past too many times sent things to AfD because a tag has been on something for only a week, and he feels that all tags should be resolved in his time frame without regard to the number of things he tags, his unwillingness to do anything but tag articles and nominate them for AfD giving no time for editors to work on those articles given how many there are, and never actually do any work on the articles himself, but spends most of his/her time trying to change guidelines on wikipedia to get them to follow the rules he wants them to without consensus and argue with anyone when consensus has been reached. There are 1000+ D&D articles alone, and Gavin only targets roleplating game articles with his tags, and works no where else on wikipedia, and has little to no knowledge about roleplaying games, and claims his specialties are in accounting. So what agenda does he have for trying to see RPG articles being destroyed because his actions give no editor time to fix them, and his disruptive editing patterns with constant reverts and POV pushing that cause editors to move away form his strong arm tactics to his personal time schedule and personal opinion over consensus? If he is really wanting to help wikipedia, then he would stop his disruptive editing and when he tags something follow those guidelines he so much loves and places stuff on the talk pages to address the concerns and reason he adds the tags to articles. But instead he just copy and pastes a lump of tags onto many articles in the past, and is doing so again. So badly that he often has to edit his copy/paste to remove tags he knows are wrongly placed. HE has some agenda for doing so, otherwise he would actually read the articles, rather than just tag every RPG article with the same 5 tags grouped together in batches, and make sure he is using the proper tags, and try to work with other editors. Nobody at this point is wanting to work with Gavin, because he/she has personally attacked many of the members of the D&D project, and the project in general and continues to force his/her own POV, and fails even to follow instructions given to him by admins like User:Jéské Couriano. Where he/she is concerned, this is Gavinpedia, not Wikipedia. It is not always best to allow just anyone to edit a website, and Gavin is proof. If he stopped his disruptive editing and tried to work with other editors it might be different, but he only pushes his POV by it with regards to RPG articles, WP:book, FICT, BIO, etc; everything must be as Gavin says or it is wrong. I suggest you seriously read and follow along Gavin's history before defending his actions so loosely. So if he is so interested in helping wikipedia, then why doesn't he do some work to fix rather than tag articles, or work in some field on wikipedia if not that he has an agenda related to roleplaying? shadzar-talk 16:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is with the AfD, not with using the specific {{notability}} tag, in my opinion. Have you tried to take the case to mediation? --Alvestrand (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There has been attempted RfC and an RfM with regards to one article, but were not very productive and all turned into what was described above. We are hoping for more peaceful attempts and curbing the problem with the AfD issue in regards to the tags, but it seems unlikely without stronger measures. AfD seems to be included in the procedure for the notability tag and is used with force in relation to those in which he tags and are not fixed within his timeline without regards for things such as holidays, people having real lives, and not living for wikipedia, and the sheer number of articles and material on dead-tree stock that takes time to research as it was made prior to the digital age and digital media revolution. :( shadzar-talk 20:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If Gavin.collins includes AfD in the procedures for notability anywhere nearer than a year from the time of tagging, on that criterion alone, I think he is acting outside of consensus. It's not "included in the procedure", it's "done by Gavin", and you need to work on that basis.

If I were involved, I'd say "collect evidence" - article name, date and placer of first notability tag, date and proposer of AfD, outcome of AfD; the rest should be easy enough to find with that as a basis. Then present to someone with long experience (admin, clerk, arbcomm member) and say "does this look reasonable? Could you help us have a rational discussion about this?" Note: I'm NOT involved. --Alvestrand (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

einstein's religion

lets be frank with one another. Einstein was an atheist pure and simple. How much did the man have to say about religion for you people to let him go. He did not believe in a personal god nor did he believe in life after death!!!! He did not believe in miracles or in a organized religion, what he did believe in was logic and reason. The vandalism is people like you (probally christians) refusing to acknowledge his lack of religion or a belief in a deity. wiki will be a better place when the religous stop trying to lie about someones lack of a religion.You can thank me for the correction to your vandalism and lying User:Themetalgod 20:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me be equally frank. You have taken on the job of defining "atheist" in a way that means "everything that doesn't conform to your idea of the Godhead".

Your position is neither logical, supported by the literature, or (in my opinion) correct. The fact that you can't imagine any form of godhead that isn't personal (read up on Buddhism), any form of religion that doesn't include life after death (read up on Taoism), or any religion that doesn't have to be organized (read up on Wiccan) doesn't mean that you get to have your definitions be authoritative for Wikipedia.

Besides, Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about verifiability. When you can point to a significant body of literature that shows that the majority opinion of the people who write about Einstein is that he was an atheist, you get to say that he was an atheist. Until then, shut up and stick to what can be documented. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Holla from ya boy

Let me be equally frank, and lets get something straight here you punk!(Ariobarza is joking around, and trying to be funny [sarcastic], please do not get mad at him).

Hi buddy, its been a long time since we talked. I was just wondering if you can look at the sources I put for Battle of the Median Fort, to find this article; go on my main page, and click on it. I have found hundreds of sources for it, but chose sixty good ones. So respond on my talk page if you think the sources are [okay]. By the way, ChrisO called this unborn article, another doomed article endquote. Actually it is not doomed.

I feel that I should give you advice now... I been seeing how you told me to shut up once (which I totally forgive you) and now seeing it here again. As a friendly advice from you fellow Ariobarza, I suggest you do not say that anymore. I know it's hard not to get mad at dumb users who are biased, and I am scared myself when I think about saying shut up, because I know other users will say I am not a good faith user, and take me to RFC for it. All I am saying is, mean users will use what you say against you. It has happened to me too. I just don't want to see you to get in trouble (I mean that). I hope you understand the idea now (I feel like this message is getting too long). So finally, if you could do my request which I put here, and respond on my page. I will greatly appreciated, many thanks from Ariobarza, good luck!--Ariobarza (talk) 13:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

If you mean User:Ariobarza/Battle of the Median Fort, I'm afraid you've lost me. You haven't started writing the article.

If you mean the Google Books links listed on its talk page, please come back when you've done a {{cite book}} reference for each.

Your note above sounds like you're trying to be threatening without being caught at it. Sorry, you failed on both counts. --Alvestrand (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I went over and checked out a couple of your links. Several of them were to the Cyropaedia by Xenophon; the Wikipedia article on the Cyropedia says that it's "generally considered at least "partly fictional"". If you can delete all references to Xenophon, and all references to people who cite Xenophon as their source, and still have material enough for an article, it might survive. --Alvestrand (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! Slow down there. Alvestrand, I promise you I was never trying to be threatening, talk about getting the wrong impression. I was telling you mean users will use what you say against you, I was giving you friendly advice.

(inline responses, since there are so many different things here) It's probably good advice. You should take it.

Secondly, I have a good number of sources that use some archaological evidence in accordance to the accounts of Xenophon. We all know 80% of Cyropaedia is fiction, but, there are some areas of the book were he talks about Persian customs, gives battle numbers, and is gives extremely detailed accounts of some battles, the Battle of Thymbra (as even Herodotus mentions), is probably the best proof for the Cyropaedia as a historical source.

Citing Xenophon about Xerxes should probably be treated just like citing Shakespeare about Henry the 8th. --Alvestrand (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Now, in the meantime, I will try to look for modern sources. But understand this, Wikipidia is not a contest, it is a encylopaedia, if we have a 1900 source on a REAL subject, then it is better to include what we have than not include anything! I bet you Wikipedia will never be a complete encylopadia, because of so much stricter users are making it, twisting laws. But do not worry, most of the sources I will include will be mostly modern sources, history articles are the hardest to write (I am challenging myself), because if a historian does not write a NEW book on a old but reliable subject, for some reason it cannot go on Wikipedia, what a shame.

I am no revisionist, but I know Wikipedia should be about ReliablE sources, not how old or new they are {old sources, unless they contradict new sources, are okay to include}. Example; if people do not write a book about D-day for another 100 years, can Wikipedian's in the year 2108 include the 100 year book as one of many 100 year old books on that subject, or should they omit D-day from Wikipedia??? Contradictions, contradictions, I really need you to answer that question honestly without being negative, and please at least assume good faith.

With the number of professional historians being larger now than at any previous time in history, I doubt that this is a serious problem. However, not everything those historians write will be available on Google Books any time soon. --Alvestrand (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have found some contradictions (not in Wikipedia's rules) but how some users interpert them, they are like Evangelists reading the Bible, and using a qoute to justify something that hurts human development. Whenever users do not help, but critisize, they do the opposite of contributing to Wikipedia. This is dissapointing, especially to new users that just want to contribute. On your next message try to come up with a solution that we can both agree on, do not give me a one sided robotic answer, please. After that, I will not ask a favor of you. I will finish making the article, double check it. Then maybe I will ask for feedback, thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 10:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

do your homework. And try to understand what people are telling you - some of those people who try to advise you ARE professional historians. --Alvestrand (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for responding so late, could you point out the proffessional historians, just kidding. Anyways, thanks for the advice dude.--Ariobarza (talk) 08:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

ChrisO for one..... --Alvestrand (talk) 10:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Your joking right? Everything Chriso has done is the same a any Guidlines God there is, he has shown unproffessional scholarship in the most common sense of issues, and frequently denies Persian history as my OR. He say's nothing on is own page that he is a scholar, come on. "Give me a break, give me a break, give me a piece of that Kit Kat Bar!" See, in the face of death, Ariobarza is still a charming fellow, hate to see him go away, huh?--Ariobarza (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

I didn't say that he was perfect, I said that he was a professional historian. It's common on Wikipedia to claim that everyone's equally entitled (silly idea; there is no entitlement) to edit on Wikipedia, so it's also common to not make a big issue of one's qualifications for those who have them. --Alvestrand (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Correction: He's trained under professional historians. He's not working as a historian. --Alvestrand (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Alvestrand, after trying to assume good faith with you, do you want me to get banned? Please freely answer here with Yes... or No... That is all, thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

I want to stop worrying about unencyclopedic content being added by you. My preferred mechanism would be for you to grow up. If you don't (and you haven't so far), I think a ban is better for the encyclopedia. --Alvestrand (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Since my block, I have grown up by editing in my userspace, I have not broken a single damn rule. And I should be blocked for siege of gordim, and now presenting evidence of tigris battle happening, I should be banned because of this? Stop falling for a couple of biased people's agendas. You see why I get mad. gOODrIDENS mate!--Ariobarza (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

You still haven't grown up enough to realize that when you claim to cite sources, it's your responsibility to call out the name of the source and the age of the source; it's unreasonable to give people a page of URLs and say "this is my evidence, go check it".

You still haven't grown up enough to have learned that when you get an one-paragraph note saying that you have been stupid, the effective response is never to re-post a kilobyte of what you responded in the last discussion; the effective response is to be brief, acknowledge that there has been error, and show that you have stopped being disruptive.

You still haven't grown up enough to realize that people who are angry at your actions have nothing against you personally.

Your actions speak very loudly. --Alvestrand (talk) 09:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I accept all you say, buty I have provided the name and age of the source for that battle in the begining of the paragraphs, how could you have missed it? You can even go on my talk page, it all laid out and bare for anyone to look at, people think that because I am an impossible person, that they should ignore my best evidence, oh no no. Only at the end I provide the link, after giving instructions to what to look for there. The smoking gun is still smoking. For once in your life, I beg you please, if you just read it once, I promise you, you will achieve enlightenement. God bless you, praise the lord. Can I get an Ahmen? Ahmen! Can I get an Ahmen? Ahmen!--Ariobarza (talk) 09:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

I have read it many times. You're still doing WP:OR in every sense of the term - building theories out of snippets from ancient texts and debatable authorities. I have told you many times that your "best" evidence is still not enough, and that the way you present it (as if it was an obvious truth) is causing people to dismiss even what you present. Until you realize that you are being a fool, I'm afraid that the path of wisdom is closed to you. --Alvestrand (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: I put some notes on your talk page about your sources. You are taking words written in a context completely different from "what is the history of Cyrus' war against Babylon?" and taking them as evidence for your theory. That's wrong use of sources; I've done this so many times now that I'm probably going to stop soon. You're not showing that you're learning to read critically for yourself. --Alvestrand (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

To respond here. Firstly you say that the two books that you put your commentary on don't mention the invasion of Babylon by Cyrus, actually the Cyropaedia, in that first book it takes about his invasion, and in the second book it says two battles were fought on the Tigris. Secondly, I know why you did not put your commentary on the later books, because all of them, especially state that the first battle happened somewhere on the Tigris, in Kuhrt's and Briant(which I will put soon) it say that the city Dur-Kashanu was a fortiefied town by the king of Babylon's son, and he retreated after a confrontation with Cyrus' army, then Opis happpened. Check out Briant's book, From Cyrus to Alexander, page 40 or 41, and page 883-884 on Google books that you can see clearly. The last two books explicity say there was two battles regardless of the Bible or Xenophon. So I have counted each historian involved with this issue that can be found at the moment, and about 90% reach this vague but real Tigris battle conclusion. It does not matter if it is a snippet, if you can see that it say's it (I am now directly qouting Olmstead's book), In October Cyrus fought another battle at Opis. Then it's there. I later elaborate that because it is a very little known event. It has not reached notoriaty in 'most' books. The books I mention are modern, and their historians are the best on the subject, what more could you ask for. I do promise however (because my article does not exist yet), I will probably change the title, make a complete rewrite and include ONLY what each author explicitly states, plus I will source every sentence, and get rid of the OR junk. Can we agree on that? Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

How dense is it possible to be? The commentary I put on the first 2 books is that NEITHER OF THE BOOKS PURPORTS TO BE A HISTORY BOOK. Therefore, treating them as history books is invalid use of sources. And the reason why I did not comment on more is that I stopped after two.

Once I see you take out the just-plain-stupid sources like these, cite your sources properly, and do what you have said so many times and write articles without the OR, I might start believing your nice words. So far, you have just kept on repeating the same dumb claims, even after being told many times that they are stupid, and why they are stupid, and seeming to believe that it's the responsibility of the rest of Wikipedia to tell you when you're being stupid. You're wrong. It's YOUR responsibility to not be stupid. --Alvestrand (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: William Speer

Oh, I didn't notice that. Not sure if this is the best way, but what I usually do is just add a disambiguator to the incoming links. I will do that now. If/when those articles are created the redirect can be turned into a dab page. — jwillbur 00:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

...

Actually, I wouldn't mind having semi-protection be the default article state. But I guess I'm still in the minority on that. --Alvestrand (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh... yes, you are. Think about it for a moment. You want people to have to register, then sit there for four days doing nothing, then make ten edits to project pages of a project they don't know much about yet, before they can edit articles? -- Gurch (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I goofed. I was thinking of requiring logins for all articles, which is different. Will fix. --Alvestrand (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Find a grave

I'm back to working occasionally at the find-a-grave project and was wondering which pages you are currently working on. I see you have edited the St page recently and don't want to step on your toes. Happy new year, — jwillbur 00:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Before going on vacation, I was trying to get through the searching of all S entries - there's only the stuff on St left before that's done. So I'll finish that when I take some Wikipedia time again (probably soon - I'm back from vacation now). Feel free to edit anywhere else at the moment! --Alvestrand (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll start re-pruning and searching R. — jwillbur 17:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm finished with S now (the sum on the front page went UP, due to the CMOH reassignment). Now working on H. --Alvestrand (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Dæmonium

I added an external link to the official publisher's page for the book (who themselves are prob'ly one of THE biggest names in the entire field). Is this enough to keep the article legitimate? I'd hate to see the page deleted because of the editor's (me) lack of knowledge on how to establish such things, as I pretty much see the sort of thing as defeating the entire purpose of Wikipedia, ya know. Just lemme know if this in itself is fine, or if I need to do more. I will add more to the article this week. —Ƿōdenhelm (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia notability guideline can be more or less summarized as "if someone else takes notice of it, Wikipedia should too", with the reliable sources policy saying "you have to be able to document that someone took notice". Who took notice of Dæmonium's publication, and why? For that matter, how did you learn that it had been published (apart from seeing it in the shop)? --Alvestrand (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiiliam B. Ward/Alamo

Hey He was a drunk in the 2004 film. They had someone play him and I'm sure they had historical research done to create a real supporting cast. Not that thats proof but check out this link and maybe you would like to put that information back up?? tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/WW/fwabe.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by King Cobb (talk • contribs) 06:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The handbook of Texas online seems like a reputable source. I'll re-add. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Degenerics

I saw that you had commented on a page created by a User:Craigfuyong, by the titled name. Maybe, I'm wrong but not only the notability, but the lack of reliable sources, references, whatever you want to call them pushed me into nominating the page for speedy delete. Maybe if you could have some kind of input because the editor seems to believe that simply removing the tag and continuing what they were doing is acceptable, of which I have learned, is not. This reason only is why I send you this message in hopes that maybe you can help wikify the article in some way. Thanks in advance and Cheers!!!--EmperorofPeopleEverywhere (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I did a drive-by nomination (I think) on The Degenerics in August 2007, but the user recreated it as Degenerics, which was deleted in Jan 2009. Those are the only contributions made by that account, ever. If you find some magazine article or something else published about them, asserting notability, feel free to create an article summarizing the magazine article - no source, no article; if sourced, it's worth trying again. I have no knowledge of the group, so can't help much. Good luck! --Alvestrand (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

ISO 639 alpha-3 as TLD

I now read Harald Tveit Alvestrand - ok, super. Maybe if you have to do with ICANN you can also put influence on, that alpha-3 TLDs are not assigned in contradiction to ISO 639. Also ISO 639 should maybe not use com/net/org/biz. So one keeps open the possibility to use alpha-3 TLDs for lang specific stuff. .cat is positive example here. Since 639 codes can be new created even for big languages, the whole alpha-3 TLD space should be locked. TalkChat (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll be disappointed - the top level domain space does not admit to a relationship with ISO 639 at all. The country codes are ISO 3166 codes, which are frequently in conflict with ISO 639 all by themselves. No restriction on 3-letter TLDs is planned. --Alvestrand (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"TLD does not admit relationship to ISO 639 at all" - exactly that is why I wrote this to you. If it would be implemented already, then there would be no need to point at it. It seems that by saying "country codes are ISO 3166 codes, which are frequently in conflict with ISO 639" - you are talking about ccTLD. But I was talking about something like langTLD. That the two sets can lead people to false assumptions when used in domains I am aware of. I created "List of unrelated alpha-2 codes in ISO 639 and ISO 3166" which was deleted and now is at User:TalkChat/List of unrelated alpha-2 codes in ISO 639 and ISO 3166. Why forgo the chance to use alpha-3 TLD in a logical way? Like is done with alpha-2 TLD? Did anyone ever suggested that? If so which counter reasons were brought up? TalkChat (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Found http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/gerrand-01feb06.pdf TalkChat (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Find a grave

Yes, I was planning on doing P next so I'll get right on it! — jwillbur 20:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standardista

I'd like to point out that you can vote to transwiki an article just as validly as you can vote to delete or keep. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the point! Will do so. --Alvestrand (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Changes in Dr. Winterberg's Biography

We made an error by trying to add another 'Notes' reference and the whole Notes list vanished. We tried to undo but Wiki prompted that it can't undo due to some intermediate edits. If you could please restore the Notes list we would greatly appreciate it. With best regards, Stephan Fuelling for Friedwardt Winterberg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.197.31.75 (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Licorne

FYI, I blocked 66.194.104.5 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) for one month as a sock of user:Licorne.   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems good to me. This IP has a rich history, which probably means it's a shared IP, but recent activity is Licorne-consistent. --Alvestrand (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I've also just blocked user:134.197.31.75 for the same pattern of editing.   Will Beback  talk  01:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

According to [2], that's Winterberg's assistant, helping Winterberg himself whitewash his bio. And the IP traces to University of Nevada. Also inappropriate behaviour, but seems likely to be a different person. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I was in a hurry and didn't investigate as mush as I should have. I'll remove the tag and leave a warning about deleting sourced info on the talk page instead.   Will Beback  talk  08:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Licorne

For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. In the case of a category like this one, parent categories are provided automatically when you include a {{Sockpuppet category}} template.

Contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I was trying to copy what others had done, but didn't get it all.... --Alvestrand (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

ISO 639 relations

ISO_639#Relations_between_the_parts

"I KNOW the standard" [3] - ... well and in this section you can learn about the codes. E.g.

There is also at least one element (car) that represents an individual language in Part 2 and Part 3 [4], and a family in Part 5 [5].

Standard becomes to be less usefull with such double definitions. Rest group stuff was already a start for it. I think to have seen your name somewhere outside WP, so if you have any influence on the 639-5 committe, please notify them about that very special case with 'car'.

TalkChat (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they made a mistake? Or maybe the -5 editors are waiting for the -2 editors to fix their error? I don't think the -1 editors care.... --Alvestrand (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Talk:ISO_639-5 it would be a mistake on purpose, page says that JAC is aware of the fact.

" ISO 639 JAC has confirmed that car remains as a single Carib language in accordance with 639-2, opposing to Carib languages as in 639-5. -✉ Hello World! 16:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)"

TalkChat (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

In the web site of 639-5, car has been removed. --✉ Hello World! 04:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Photon belt

The linked straight dope entry specifically meantions reltive motion. Taemyr (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! - that's enough to put it back! --Alvestrand (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Classless_Inter-Domain_Routing

Sorry, I beg to differ that there was any mistake at all. When specifying CIDR netmasks, it's legal to specify zero significant bits, which indicates the default route. This is very typically only used as "0.0.0.0/0" or "0/0" although it's possible to express the same specification as for example 127.0.0.0/0. And then to express that all bits are significant (as in expressing a single address), one uses the suffix /32. A good example would be the IPv4 address of an interface device used for IPsec in transport mode (or many other point-to-point links).

To illustrate the 0/0, here's an example of using the iptables command on Linux with the -n (numeric) option:

0 15:11:21 rchandra@sal9000:~ 0> sudo iptables --list -v -n --line
Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 260M packets, 324G bytes)
num   pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination         

Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 41456 packets, 19M bytes)
num   pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination         
1    27193 3245K ACCEPT     all  --  tun0   *       0.0.0.0/0            192.168.1.0/24      
2        0     0 REJECT     all  --  tun0   *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           reject-with icmp-net-prohibited 

Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 161M packets, 13G bytes)
num   pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination         
0 15:11:30 rchandra@sal9000:~ 0>

Similarly, here's an example of using the ip command on Linux showing the IPv4 addresses (notice the tun0 interface):

0 15:20:08 rchandra@sal9000:~ 0> ip -4 addr list
1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,10000> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue 
    inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo
2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,10000> mtu 1400 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 100
    inet 192.168.1.190/24 brd 192.168.1.255 scope global eth0
107: tun0: <POINTOPOINT,MULTICAST,NOARP,UP,10000> mtu 1350 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 500
    inet 10.114.255.5/32 brd 10.114.255.5 scope global tun0
0 15:21:49 rchandra@sal9000:~ 0> 

Joe 19:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rchandra (talk • contribs)

The edit error I intended to undo, [6], was the IP address that was inserted in the word "and". I missed the fact that I undid something else. Sorry! --Alvestrand (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Find a grave

FYI, I just started on F. — jwillbur 01:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Great - I'm still deep within D (pun intended!) --Alvestrand (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

findagrave

I don't know why I did that, exactly. I'm trying to depopulate the Find A Grave template use and in some cases have had trouble getting it to stop showing up on the "what links here" page for one. If I have also nowikied the one everyone wants to keep, it was probably because I was quite sleepy and should have stopped an hour before I did that. I apologize if I messed anything up for you. I got involved in doing this when I saw that the man who runs Find A Grave had been fixing some templates that were flagged in his server as not working when clicked and ultimately, to avoid the appearance of COI, we agreed that he would post any faulty links to my talk page so I can fix them. I've depopulated the list from over 1700 down to just around 1000. It's fast work for me. Again, I apologize. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

no problem - I wanted to make sure I wasn't messing anything up by reverting those!

still working my way through Wikipedia:Find-A-Grave famous people.... --Alvestrand (talk) 05:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Hello. When you patrol new pages, acceptable articles or articles which have been tagged for deletion should be marked as "patrolled" using the link at the bottom right of the article. This saves time and work by informing fellow patrollers of your review of the page so that they do not duplicate efforts. Thank you. ∗ Smartse (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That link works fine, but only when I enter from the new pages patrol page. The link doesn't show when finding a new page by other means (which I sometimes do). Which page was it that prompted the comment? --Alvestrand (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean - I patrolled a page (not sure now which) that you had edited and yet hadn't been marked as "patrolled" that's all. Smartse (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Just that I can't mark a page as patrolled when I don't see the "Mark as patrolled" link - and that only shows up when I enter the page from the "New pages patrol" list. So asking people to mark pages as patrolled is pretty useless if they don't come at pages through the "new pages patrol". When I encounter recently-blue links from the Find-A-Grave pages, I have no way to figure out whether it's been patrolled or not. FWIW, when I do "patrolling from the back", as recommended, meaning that I patrol stuff that is a month old, I usually see pages edited 4 or 5 times and still not marked. There's a bit of a backlog there.... --Alvestrand (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Soccer player

Hi there! Well, a simple Google and Yandex search in English AND Russian revealed the truth plus common sense - Napoleon Bonaparte's father's name was Karl (hence, Napoleon Karlovich :)). If I am wrong, please restore the name. Happy editing! KNewman (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Funny... I don't know what to say :). The tombstone really says Napoleon Karlovich Kara-something (I can't make out the ending). Dunno, the search revealed nobody under this name. He probably was an unnotable small-time Ukrainian footballer, and somebody went to his grave and took a picture (as a way of paying tribute or something). Let's keep him deleted for reasons of unnotability (may his soul R.I.P.). KNewman (talk) 11:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll resurrect him and move him to the "possibly non-notable" section - that's the tradition on the Find-A-Grave pages... --Alvestrand (talk) 11:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:IETF Logo gif 4-24-07.gif)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:IETF Logo gif 4-24-07.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for you improvements to Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/biographies! That should help us with the tools we need to finish them off. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

NP - these are tricks evolved while working with Wikipedia:Find-A-Grave famous people, and they seemed useful here too. --Alvestrand (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sami Yusuf

Please refer to the talk/discussion page on Sami Yusuf's article. I've stated my reasoning and arguments with full proof. Thanks --Boycotter (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Good that you now have an account. Comments made on the Sami Yusuf talk page. --Alvestrand (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Find a grave sorting

Thanks for the tip, that sounds a lot easier than the way I was trying to do it (scroll up, scroll down, scroll up....). Can I ask how you have been determining notability? Some are clearly not notable, and some clearly are, but most are somewhere in between and I'm not sure how to decide. I've been trying quick google searches, but it's still hard to tell. — jwillbur 17:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I've gone by category so far - assuming that all politicians, victims and relatives are non-notable, and that all Civil War military people are likewise, but that all actors, sportsmen, musicians and composers are notable. The "other" category is 100% guesswork - if the words I added when searching them indicate maybe-notability, I put them in "not on wikipedia", if not, in "PNN". I think of this as a rough sort, no aim for perfection here! --Alvestrand (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds like a good guideline, although I've been assuming U.S state/Canadian province-level politicians are notable, based on WP:POLITICIAN. — jwillbur 18:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

As with the CMOH recipients, we'll probably have to upgrade them if the guideline really says so. Should we collect a list of the guidelines we consider in the top-level page somewhere? I started out regarding even Congressmen as non-notable unless they had done something noteworthy, but the Congress wikiproject made that question moot. But regarding all state house/senate members as notable seems like a stretch to me - in Rhode Island or Alaska, I guess they'd be a significant percentage of the population.... and having the elected officials of all sub-national levels of Norway is just ridiculous. --Alvestrand (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I had to read it twice to make sure that's what it really said, it does seem like overkill to me. Collecting a list of guidelines that we use is a good idea, it will help us stay consistent. Although I don't necessarily agree with all the notability guidelines at WP:PEOPLE, they presumably have consensus so we should probably stick to them. — jwillbur 18:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Open Book Initiative barnstar

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar
		For helping to complete the OBI missing biographies list! Jokestress (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Gee, thanks! My little push seems to have helped trigger an avalanche of completion - I only did one! --Alvestrand (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The cross-references and interwiki links really helped facilitate completion! Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

For creators:

AfD nomination of Howie Weinberg

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Vondell (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, it's nice to see I have a stalker. I think it's a bit of an extrapolation to say that just because a book has "Pidgeons" as a chapter title that must mean that arguably world's greatest scientist was "obsessed" with pidgeons. It'd be like saying you're obsessed with your dog or something. I have on good authority that orangutans have over 90% of their diet as fruit. Your other edits seem typically rather arbitrary, as some of the edits made might be regarded as a bit arbitrary to begin with I'm going to leave them, however I do not believe you should have changed some of them. Anonywiki (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Cite a source. Always cite a source. The editor who put the pigeon stuff in Tesla seems to have thought that the book supported his statement. If you have read the book and think the book says something else, say so. If you have another source that claims something different about Tesla and pigeons, say so. If not, leave it alone. The same goes for the "90% fruit" statement - unless you cite a source, your opinion and claims of "good authority" has no standing. Placing your personal opinion into Wikipedia is WP:OR, and not what Wikipedia is about. (Note about stalking: When I see someone make an edit I feel unjustifiable on Wikipedia, I check what else the editor has done. In your case, every single edit I found after the one you got blocked for was done without citing a source, so I reverted them. I don't care where you live or what you want to use your life for. But I don't want your personal opinions in Wikipedia.) --Alvestrand (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Winterberg notes

FYI: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Professor Friedwardt Winterberg.   Will Beback  talk  05:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You might want to think of blanking the pages, which does a good job of hiding the information while still making it available for reference. Of course, moving it to a personal computer is another option.   Will Beback  talk  06:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, this is being raised on WP:BLPN#Professor Friedwardt Winterberg. Again, I suggest blanking the page.   Will Beback  talk  20:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Due to the complaints, I've taken the liberty of blanking the page. You can restore the contetns if you need to edit it. Pages that detail potential violations by users are allowed if they are being used to prepare a case for a noticeboard, RfC, or the like. Beyond that they begin to be regarded as attack pages.   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to have a discussion on whether one can keep notes of facts in private space on Wikipedia; this case has run over several years, branching off from the User:Licorne case. My alternate repository is Google Docs, but that's much more inconvenient to me. Irritating Phyisker seems like a small price to pay for getting a discussion on this issue. I'll try to follow the discussion. --Alvestrand (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I see dead people

Yes, it's an interesting project. It might be worth slowly removing from the list the definitely non-notable. It's not always clear cut and there's room for a "possibly non-notable" section but some of these soldiers should be thrown out if the Find-a-Grave bio says only: "guy who died in war X" (with all due respect to them). I also think it would make sense to throw out all the non-people entries and just focus on biographies. Another idea I had in mind was requesting the help of a bot to identify articles that do exist but under a slightly different name. Pichpich (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to divide out the non-notables, and am not counting them when I count "percent completed" - you'll find a discussion of that on the project's talk page. Since it turns out some are notable when I wouldn't have guessed (I originally classified all the CMOH recipients as "pnn"), I see a low cost in keeping them in the "pnn" section. Same for the monuments. All the pages have had "search" done (I like to hit the "gwp" link) to search for "known under another name", but nothing's perfect - there's always some entry that won't be found that way. And of course there's always lots of false positives to contend with... have fun! --Alvestrand (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok. In any case, I've been taking whacks at various parts of WP:MISSING but you clearly know the Find-a-Grave situation better than I do so I'll be conservative in my pruning. btw, I just shortened Wikipedia:Find-A-Grave famous people/C/Cr. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let me know when you've had it with my questions, but here's another one. I'm redirecting the defenders of the Alamo to the list. Should I write in the F-a-G reference? The site is not exactly a reliable source, especially for detailed info and it seems a better solution to just let someone with Groneman's book at hand write in the proper reference. Pichpich (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think writing in the reference for stuff just pointed at is worth it. I only add F-A-G as an external link (never as a reference!) when I add information (such as dates or middle names) to an article. I regard the quality of this as "hearsay", but it's often better than nothing.

WRT redirects in general - I've been thinking that we might want to create a special category for them - "redirects to article that mentions them" - after all, someone might come later and decide that this person needs an article, so I'm not all that 100% happy with deleting them, but it's also significantly less likely that they would need an article than for others that aren't talked about anywhere. What do you think about that? --Alvestrand (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... Interesting question. Here are my two cents. Almost all the redirects I created recently point to the correct individual bio. The exceptions have been murder victims, disaster victims and Alamo defenders. As far as murder/disaster victims go, we actually do not want people to create individual articles and I'd argue that removing them from the list is actually beneficial. Of course, we have to make sure that these people have no other claim to fame but you and I both know that if an already famous person died in a famous accident or gruesome murder then that person has an article! The Alamo defenders are a bit different but I'm not sure that there are that many editors who create new articles purely for the sake of taking cracks at the F-a-G backlog and the few that do are likely to view the redirect as "done". Pichpich (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... for the Alamo defenders, I agree they can be redirected and deleted. For the murder victims, if the victim's clearly not notable (as with probably all of Gary Ridgway's victims)¸ a redirect's almost more than what's warranted - but it's cheap, and as long as it doesn't get in the way, it should do no harm. My thought was more for cases like Jane Tradescant, who was the wife of a notable person and the mother of another, or a case where all 4 members of a quartet have Find-A-Grave entries, but only the quartet has a Wikipedia article - I wouldn't foreclose the possibility that some members have individual notability, but would need more proof of it. In htat case, it would be (I think) OK to create a redirect and leave the link under "PNN" in a section called "Probably covered enough in redirected-to article" or something like that. --Alvestrand (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm following your lead on such cases and leaving the note "redirects there" which I agree is a reasonable thing to do. (and on another topic, these lists give the depressing impression that Gary Ridgway killed 5000 people...) Pichpich (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Me again... Following your request, I've updated the numbers for the letters on which I did extensive work. In places where I removed one or two blue links, I don't think it's meaningful to update the numbers or dates. I've also left out the changes in the B and S subpages. That's because a) I did not do a thorough search and b) I think that the actual number of entries left in these sections is very much underestimated because a significant portion of the PNN are actually notable or at the very least likely notable. And it would just be depressing to have the numbers increasing... In any case, I think I'll stop my obsessive digging through these lists for now! Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Logical problem

Good catch, Your absolutely right and I will update the accessdate to be the same date tomorrow. I am also going to expand some of the references in the next few days.--Kumioko (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Licorne again

It seems that User talk:Licorne continues his propaganda trip. (See 173.169.90.98, or 66.194.104.5). --D.H (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It feels perverse to see Licorne campaigning to have Macrossan's writing referenced.... but yes, I think it's him again. I'll do the usual thing. --Alvestrand (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Alvestrand/POV-history

This subpage seems to violate WP:OUTING, would you be willing to remove personal information regarding the subject? BJ^Talk 03:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll do that. Thanks for reminding me; I was young back then. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Find A Grave

Thank you for your message. I have alerted the editor who requested the move. Plastikspork (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Daily Word

Hi! The Unity Daily Word article has been flagged for deletion. Do you know of any reliable news sources that can be cited? Thanks! --Trelawnie (talk) 01:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't see a deletion flag on it - either now or in history - issues flags are just that - issues flags... --Alvestrand (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Help!

Hi Alvestrand, the article Tunes of Heaven that I created has been tried to be deleted. Not sure about the language that is needed to be changed to make it encyclopedic. Can you please help?--Musicmaniaz (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, get references. Second, get references. At the moment, there is nothing that shows that anyone else cared about the composer or the record; if it got a review in a Bangladeshi newspaper, add a reference to it and say what it said. If it got coverage on national radio (talking about it, not just playing it), add a reference to that. Non-Internet resources are fine references too. The point is that others need to be able to verify that it's a notable record. Good luck! --Alvestrand (talk) 06:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alvestrand, thanks for your tips...in fact I didn't find any other album to place for the empty Category:Bangladeshi compositions and recordings except Tunes Of Heaven that is even just released this year, so it was difficult for me to find online/offline references...thanks again, anyway.--Musicmaniaz (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

They are now trying to delete both Tunes of Heaven as well as the composer's bio Mushfiqul Alam with AFDs, just FYI.--Musicmaniaz (talk) 06:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You may want to think: How did you hear about it, and about the author? How did your friends? What did you see or read that made you think "I want to hear this"? You may find that the references exist. No references, no article. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Google hits show many listing in directories/pages etc. about the composer (Mushfiqul Alam). Is there any way to get the count/stat of visitors that wikipedia get (from Google or else) for the article?--Musicmaniaz (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

But most of those Google hits are things that someone acting to push a story could have created on his behalf - MySpace pages, comments in blogs, entries in self-edited directories and so on. That's why Wikipedia places so much emphasis on sourcing from sources independent of the subject. Visit counts are available via the toolserver, but I never remember how to find it; but they're hardly relevant here, since they're another "in-Wikipedia" measure. --Alvestrand (talk) 12:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The Google "hits" are clearly self promotion by Mushfiq. As a Bangladeshi very familiar with Bangladeshi music scene, I have never heard anyone talk about or praise Mushfiq's work as a composer ... so the "Beethoven" remarks are clearly his own invention. At one point, he even promoted him as a "scientist" in his wikipedia bio. Nothing against him, personally, but I hate to see WP being gamed for personal vanity. --Ragib (talk) 06:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Team conflict

Hello Alvestrand, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Team conflict has been removed. It was removed by Colonel Warden with the following edit summary '(Remove proposed deletion tag as "essay" is not a valid reason to delete)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Colonel Warden before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

NRM query

Hello, I just spotted your recent edit and was wondering if you might be able to clarify something. Seeing items listed in the main NRM 'subcategories' list that have drop down menus but a number do not function as I thought they might; in some instances the further subcategories of those articles listed are not populating the menus. I can't figure out how to fix this, and have tried a few things, can you explain if you know? thanks. Measles (talk) 11:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I hadn't even discovered the subcategory submenus until you pointed them out to me. I think you have to talk to some of the people who implement this to get advice. Good luck! --Alvestrand (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Table topic

Hello Alvestrand, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Table topic has been removed. It was removed by Uncle G with the following edit summary '(Removed notice. Proposed Deletion was contested in the immediately preceding edit.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Uncle G before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Re:Idea for the dead-end pages notes

This seems like an easy enough idea to implement. I should have enough time to add this to the bot's task sometime this weekend. Sorry about the time it took me to get back to you about this, I don't check my bot's talk page all that often. In the future you'll get a faster response if you leave such messages directly on my talk page.--Dycedarg ж 19:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

NP, I know all about not having the time to do the things I want to do - just wanted to write down the idea before I forgot about it, and am very happy that you found it eventually! --Alvestrand (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

301 redirect

==A 301 redirect was inserted redirecting PAWNEE BILL page from www.pawneebill.org ( the external link) to another link..== I noted this when I edited the page and others linked to the page because I have been alerted through local academic circles that this attack on our collective pages was in process, that is how I discovered the re-direct. This is not a free-for-all on Wikipedia, it is something we editors need to manage. It is not to be trivialized, and should be treated as vandalism and a vandalism threat. 09/05/2009: Violation on "Pawnee Bill" page reported to Wikipedia. A 301 redirect was inserted redirecting the page to an outside page. I removed and reported the vandalism to other pages I edit in or to prevent the spread of this vandalism. Tintle (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC), I am am expert on the topic I edit. http://students.ou.edu/T/Rhonda.L.Tintle-1/Tintle (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

My problem is that I've looked through the history of Pawnee Bill and tried to find the 301 redirect. I couldn't find it. The change from the January 29 version to the September 6 version is here: [7]. Was your edit (and the insertion) removed from the edit history by an oversighter, or don't I understand what you are saying? Also, your edit history doesn't show any notes to the WP:AN/I or WP:AIV noticeboards - how did you report the issue to Wikipedia? (I am not an expert on the subject of the article, but I am an expert on some aspects of Internet technology.) --Alvestrand (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

At first I assumed it was a 301 redirect because that was the local chatter (here at the Oklahoma campuses). However, after I checked back through the pages, it appears that someone changed the external linked http://www.pawneebill.org to go to a hagiographical site about one of his houses. The reason that I wrote these articles was because I realized a few years ago my students were going to start their college history research papers in Wikipedia, period no matter how many books are in the library. So, rather than just whine about it, I wrote historically accurate articles for Wikipedia about popular local legends. I created the Pawnee Bill, May Lillie, Mexican Joe, and 101 Ranch pages. I try to monitor them because local fans want to post myths about these people, [e.g., they were all descended from royalty, kind to everyone, and the 101 Ranch is still standing (there is no a single building left from the 101 Ranch, there is a marker)]. There are many upset locals and I get a lot of hate mail about these articles. I appreciate your help. I just wanted to enlist some of the editors’ help in monitoring these pages. In the meantime time I put up some external links for people who want information that is more accurate. I will go back and edit my "alert.” Thank you for your time. Tintle (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, so there are changes at external websites where they redirect a simple URL (such as www.pawneebill.org) to another URL (such as http://www.hilwerda.com/PawneeBill/pawneebillindex.htm). This is fairly routine in webhosting, and I don't think it violates any Wikipedia policy. I suggest you just delete the warnings you put up. --Alvestrand (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

F-A-G

Hi Alvestrand. I see we're still both taking whacks at the F-A-G lists. Remember my suggestion of putting memorials some place else? I've been looking at some lists which have yet to be separated and I think we should just delete the memorials from the list period. Seems like useless effort to separate them and they're beyond the scope of that project anyways. Unrelated to that, I'm thinking of asking a bot to create translation requests for the entries where an article on other wikis has been found. Pichpich (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh and I also wanted to note that I recently created stubs about early Indianapolis mayors and had no problem finding plenty of on-line sources (thank you Google books), including some that date back to a time when it was still a pretty modest small town. I think it confirms that mayors are notable by default. We'll always be able to find someone who has chronicled the early days of a city. Pichpich (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Both suggestions seem to make sense - requesting translations seems kind of obvious now that you mention it, I just never thought of it, even while adding hundreds of those little *de markers..... I'm kind of anal about information deletion by nature, so deleting the memorials didn't occur to me either - but you have a good point - and anyone who wants them back can just go back to earlier versions of the page.

You have a point about mayors of reasonable sized towns like Indianapolis - once they've grown big, SOMEONE will always write about their early history, which documents the mayors it had when it was small. BTW, that's one thing I like with sorting things into lists by topic - someone can sit down with the list and a particular type of reference (whether it's congbio, IMDB or something else) and just get a lot done.

Go for it! --Alvestrand (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I put in a request for the bot work: Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 30#Translation requests from Wikipedia:Find-A-Grave famous people. We'll see if someone's interested to write the required bit of code and if it does happen, I'll check the output manually since I'd expect the translation experts would be none too pleased to get an avalanche of faulty data. I've also started weeding out the memorials in un-split lists. Pichpich (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Free and open ISO standard

You suggested that a free and publicly avaialble ISO/IEC standard might not be an Open standard or Free file format. What part of the common definitions in those articles would not be satisfied by a free and publicly avaialble ISO/IEC standard. hAl (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The ISO/IEC standards are licensed for private use and printing of one copy, for one thing. The fact that this is probably going to be ignored, and that ISO won't do anything about it being ignored, is interesting, but doesn't change the licensing terms.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the common definitions in those articles", given that the Open standard article is a hodgepodge of different viewpoints; for instance, ISO's process does not satisfy W3C's definition of "impartiality and consensus (guaranteed fairness by the process and the neutral hosting of the W3C organization, with equal weight for each participant)" and "availability (free access to the standard text, both during development and at final stage, translations, and clear IPR rules for implementation, allowing open source development in the case of Internet/Web technologies)". The DIGISTAN definition says "The standard has been published and the standard specification document is available freely. It must be permissible to all to copy, distribute, and use it freely." Other assertions like Bruce Perens' "Open Standards create a fair, competitive market for implementations of the standard" are less easily testable.

The "a file format whose full specification is freely available and for which there are no restrictions (e.g. legal or technical) on its use" of Free file format is shorter, but contains enough undefined words (at least in that article) to make it impossible to test objectively. --Alvestrand (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Allthough I agree a multitude of defintions exist on open standards they have a lot of comminalities. The requirement for instance to make unlimited copies is not one of them. Digistan is actually a lobby organization started by the same people that are behind the NOOXML website. They even editted in this definition into wikipedia themselves. Interesting you reference their definition that has no known adoption anywhere and ignore important relevant defenitions by governments. hAl (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not ignore them. You asked what "part of the common definitions" would not be satisfied, and I pointed out some of the definitions on the page that would not be satisfied. That's what you asked for. Again - I claim that there is no consensus on the definition, and that there are some definitions that OOXML does not satisfy; I never claimed that there are no definitions that it satisfies. After all, Microsoft's definition is cited there too. --Alvestrand (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

TATP Benchmark

Just a courtesy heads up about TATP Benchmark, which you prodded a couple of months ago. It's been restored per a request at WP:REFUND, but I've advised the requester that unless the prod issues are dealt with the article could end up at AfD.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

But some wheren i read he is in google!

http://www.alvestrand.no/

Alvestrand Data is an one-man consulting company, owned and operated by Harald Tveit Alvestrand, which also serves as a host to some community services.

It is presently mainly inactive, since the owner works full time for Cisco Systems.

But some where i read he is working for google! Which one is right?

Wikipedia is right. I'll get my homepage fixed; it's ancient. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed now - 3.5 years late. Thanks for the prod! --Alvestrand (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Steve Kille (musician)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Steve Kille (musician), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.freebase.com/view/en/steve_kille. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Tom Dixon (industrial designer)

A biography which you have either created or contributed to is completely unreferenced and carries a possible promotional tone (see: COI). All articles, especially biographies, must be neutral and adequately sourced to avoid being deleted. If you can help with these issues, please visit Talk:Tom Dixon (industrial designer), and improve the article. --Kudpung (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Steve Kille (musician)

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Steve Kille (musician). Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Creating is a bit too strong, since I carved it out of another article... --Alvestrand (talk) 06:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

FIND-A-GRAVE

"This character containing grave details of the famous as a "hobby" is either (a) the fantasy of a complete lunatic or (b) the doing of a selfish heartless biggot", you wrote on the wikipedia "Find-a-grave". Exactly what do you mean by this? Do you mean that people having gravespotting as a hobby is a "lunatic" and a "heartless biggot", or what? /Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.210.198.198 (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you must be confused. I never wrote that. --Alvestrand (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Umm...

Hello, Alvestrand. I noticed you declined a speedy deletion. I agree with your decline, in fact I was writing a {{hangon}} statement for that very page. If you are declining a speedy, please could you also check for a hangon tag first? I'd placed one, and in removing the most important part, the CSD markup, you'd left my hangon tag; I was writing the hangon summary, which I posted shortly afterward. I think the first article under the page title (which reflects the subject's correct titlecase) belongs at the then-redirected page which was nom'd for speedy deletion. –Whitehorse1 08:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm.... I take it this is about Living with the Dead. I declined a speedy on the redirect Living With The Dead that User:Ryulong created after moving the movie (I find English capitalization confusing enough that I prefer to leave these things in place), never touched a speedy on the article; I don't think there ever was one.

WRT notability: Did you follow the links? When doing dab cleanup, I found 3 links to the 2002 TV movie (which is sometimes referred to as a series, confusingly enough), 2 links to the book and none to the English TV series. So wrt notability, I'd have to say "no definitive evidence".

The Living with the Dead (TV series) article has some issues too - there are no references, so there's no way to verify your claim on the capitalization; there's no dates, no series length, no third party evidence of notability - and the claim that cheating was taking place is unsupported by the link given (I assume that Mark Webb has removed or archived the messages).

I think the best thing you can do to advance your viewpoint is to flesh out Living with the Dead (TV series) with proper references and evidence of notability - once that's done, we can discuss some more. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

(This moved above edited version of comment below to preserve some readability of flow --Alvestrand (talk) 11:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC))

I'm inclined to disagree with your edit summary comment of there being no clear candidate, on the dab page you created. The original 'owner' of the title, the multi-season television series, stands out as the obvious primary usage candidate. In this case, I think the disambiguation page unnecessary. We've just two titles (excluding an aka for a fairly obscure TV movie easily addressed by a hatnote) a dab page though borderline seems superfluous? I was penning some of those thoughts in the hangon comment, but there's something of letters crossing in the e-post going on here I think. That, or I type far too slowly. ;) –Whitehorse1 08:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The above comments refer to Living With The Dead. I should have said that originally. Incidentally, my apologies for making multiple edits in short order to your talkpage. I know that orange bar popping up like a furtive rabbit can be distracting! I'd like to make suggestions, if I may.

1. current "Living with the Dead (TV series)" be moved to "Living With The Dead"
2. a., plus disambig. page "Living with the Dead" be deleted
3. a., plus disambig. page "Living with the Dead" be moved to disambig. page "Living with the Dead (disambiguation)"

Doubtless there are further possible options too. Are any of those three suggestions an acceptable solution to you, Alvestrand? Thanks, Whitehorse1.09:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: [e/c] Above comments edited for tone, plus readability.

Thanks for providing much more material on Living with the Dead (TV series)!

I note with some puzzlement that 3 out of the 4 citations you provide (Channel Candada, Digital Spy, Mark Webb) use the downcased form of the name ("Living with the Dead"), only Burton Mail uses the all-uppercase form. This argues strongly for the idea that no matter what the name of the TV series article turns out to be, it should be pointed to by whatever is at Living with the Dead.

WRT notability, this is also a matter of perspective in time - the encyclopedia is supposed to cover reasonably subjects both past and present; this series may be nore notable *now*, but it's only viewed in the UK and Canada, whereas the movie has probably been shown everywhere the Hallmark Channel goes. It also earned 3 nominations at the Golden Satellite Awards 2002 - usually, awards are considered evidence of notability; nominations can be considered hits.

An IMDB search shows no less than six productions with this title, including an US TV series (with the 2002 US TV movie being the oldest, so if "original" was considered a criterion, the movie's got it); the UK series entry is at [8], and is nearly content free. So I don't see the case for claiming that the US TV movie is less notable than the UK TV series.

In summary - I don't see either the capitalization or the notability being clear-cut cases. In non-clear-cut cases, I would tend to want to keep the dabpage where it is. --Alvestrand (talk) 11:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Most kind of you to say so. Preoccupied with shopping and preparation for the festive period I'd little time, and really only added 2 or 3 quick sentences. I hope you had a pleasant Christmas holiday. I went back to the article today to smooth its rough edges. It's still stubbish, but now more solid.

You're right some of the citations were using the downcased form! Incidentally, the Mark Webb one wasn't added by me, I just wiki-formatted it after an IP added it. It looks like it was on my Watchlist from my adding categories. Of the remaining citations Digital Spy isn't a terribly reliable source I think, although it's okay for the limited use made of it and isn't used for any contentious content. I removed the Mark Webb link as you noted above the cheating claim was unsupported by it. A page on the channel owner's website acknowledging the general matter of him questioning the authenticity was a good replacement. Really, the only citations that should be considered authoritative on the TV series's name I think are those of the producing channel and production company. All of those, barring a press release I think, tend to stick to initial capitals ("Living With The Dead"), indicating that's its canonical name. The other citations, excluding two that're minor mentions plus the Channel Canada one, also use that form.

You mentioned notability a couple've times. I wasn't sure if you mean comparing the article's subjects with each other to determine a primary usage candidate, or were talking about the Notability guideline? As with any article you're welcome of course to tag for notability if you think any of them aren't wp:notable, or even group nominate them for AfD if you feel confident they aren't. Hmm. Hard to say where the Hallmark Channel showed the movie. Their article suggests programming varies between territories. The original searches didn't bring it up, but the series apparently airs in Australia as well as the UK and Canada. The IMDB results (aside from the US TV movie and the UK TV series) are all short films I believe. These generally don't get articles, unless they're especially significant. Their entry on the television series is sparse, true. I haven't the inclination to change it though ... if I was to submit improvements I'd probably focus on more important entries. ;)

Given the canonical capitalization is now clear, naturally the series article should have the case in its title correct. That's irrespective of it being back at its former primary location. It makes sense to also look at the dab primary topic issue if considering a rename anyway though. Overall, neither of the three are the most significant fictional works of the last century; considered with the book substub and the notability-tagged made-for-tv article however, the series seems to stand out as the most significant. Thoughts? –Whitehorse1 21:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Let's do the wikish thing and move the discussion to this article's talk page for the capitalization, and the dabpage's talk page for the notability. --Alvestrand (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Capital idea. –Whitehorse1 23:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)