User talk:Bardsandwarriors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Men in Skirts[edit]

Hello. You're right, it isn't awful for a first draft. But first drafts require cleanup, that's why they're not final drafts. When I said it desperately required cleanup, I didn't mean to insult your contribution, and I'm sorry if it looked that way. It's just got a long way to go before it meets our standards. Cheers. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 19:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair comment, thank you Bards 21:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Bards: Thanks for the note! I did add a couple of images of male skirts that I have designed and constructed. I will be adding more as I make more skirts. --Allyn 23:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Mark! Your outlandish sense of style is great :) I've replied on Talk:Men in Skirts aswell. Once we get 1 or 2 more in other styles aswell, we'll choose your best one and just have that there - if that's ok with you. Bards 06:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, some anonymous user took out both of my pictures, saying in the summary line that they were not appropriate for men's skirts, or something like that. I re-inserted the pictures. I feel that as I have seen men wear skirts like the ones that I made; as well as having sold several of these skirts to men who wear them in public; that they are appropriate. --Allyn 05:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mark, well done ;) It seems that User:Aaron_Brenneman (an admin) thinks he is god, and can change whatever he pleases, on subjects he knows nothing about, without any consultation. His ruthlessness makes me suspect a POVPush (ie. pushing his own point of view, antipathetic to the movement; wikipedia should be neutral). I have also restored the list of external links that he deleted, and left a message on his talk page to get the name of the article changed back. Bards 06:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I do need to mention, Bard, that the edit to remove my pictures was from an anonymous user (an IP address). I don't know if it was Aaron, using a public terminal such as an Icafe, or someone else. No one left me anything in my talk page, nor the talk page for the article. From you experience, if Aaron makes a change, does he usually leave a comment in your talk page or the talk page of the article? --Allyn 13:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the history page - here [1] - you will see a flurry of 4 edits (after along break with no editing) - 2 with an anonymous IP, followed by 2 signed by Aaron. I haven't encountered Aaron before. But this is very likely the same person, as it follows a pattern: he makes some edits, then realises he isn't logged in, then logs in to finish his work. There is nothing wrong with that. But his reasons for removing the pictures make no rational sense to me, and his other edits don't either. On a debatable issue, he should have opened it for discussion on the talk page. Taking high-handed unilateral decisions, on things that are debatable, strongly suggest he is not doing it for rational reasons. We will have to see if he replies. Bards 21:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Bards:

Thank you for restoring my skirt pictures. I did some checking and found that it was a different IP address that removed them this time. I went ahead and left a note in the talk page for each of the two IP addresses to please do not remove my pictures unless you leave a note in the talk page for the article or my own talk page. Nothing has been left. I will assume these removals as vandalism.

By the way, both of the IP addresses are housed in Great Brittan, but they are of different ISP's.

--Allyn 03:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No problemo. Wikipedia is full of vandals. Most are harmless - schoolkids having a laugh, or people passing through and thinking they know better. But some are jerks with issues, eg. you might find some christians or moslems objecting to your style on religious grounds. Also small-minded people with similar issues, who think it is 'perverted' or some old rubbish. Pushing points of view like that are strictly not allowed in wikipedia, but it happens. Best thing is to just revert the changes (look at history page; hit 'diff' to compare pages; hit 'undo') and think no more of it! Bards 07:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A few excellent suggestions have appeared at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Men%27s_skirts#Rewrite_proposal area. I added my two cents, as I agree with your point of view - it's correct, and objective. There is another who errantly believe's he's right, with a couple of others who simply (evidently) aren't well-travelled enough to realize how much in error their comments appear to the rest of the world. Good luck! 87.177.33.175 (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss![edit]

So: what's up with the De Long Islands?Reaganamerican 03:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

They are over here now: Category:DeLong Islands. I am cleaning up and improving the structure of Category:Arctic islands. Islands everywhere, all in the wrong places :( If I've done something to offend, please explain. Bards 04:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Arctic islands[edit]

I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm working on a project to populate the Arctic Ocean category, and I've been placing articles and categories in all of its subcategories, including the Arctic islands category. I've never spoken to you about this project, and didn't know until right now that you are working on a project that overlaps with mine. CRKingston 01:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right. I had the idea that you were someone else, and I don't know why I thought that. I will delete my question from your talk page if you like.01:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

But since we are introduced now - I have been working on cleaning up the 'islands' categories, and would appreciate a discussion on the best protocols for organising them. In Arctic Islands, for instance, I had got almost all articles categorised inside the subcats organised by archipelago, eg. article Franz Josef Land inside category Franz Josef Land. But many of your recent changes have placed the main article back outside aswell, eg. Franz Josef Land in both Franz Josef Land, and Arctic islands. Should I revert your edits in those cases, or edit them back, or do you have an interesting strategy that I should take note of? 01:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it has taken me so long to respond, I just found your note. First, I really like the Arctic Islands category, and other oceans have something similar (more like Islands of the xx ocean). Here is the strategy I have had in mind (which I might not have executed correctly). I was thinking that your islands category would have all of the islands (and island subsets like archipelago) for the entire ocean. You can break it out however you think is best. I saw the islands listed in two places, in the Arctic Islands cateogry, and in the specific sea category. A lot of them are the dividing line between seas, so they would be in both. If you create a category like DeLong Islands, it would be in the Arctic Ocean and the specific sea as well. Does this strategy make sense? I'm certainly open to discussing it. I think the inconsistencies you have found were from before, before I started creating the sea categories, I put everything into the Arctic Ocean category. Now, as I'm going through, I'm replacing the Arctic Ocean cat with a more specific sea cat. One other thing I've done that touches the islands, the island categories (like DeLong) I've started populating with other things like landforms, explorers, etc. that are beyond the scope of the ocean/sea categories. Let me know what you think, and again, sorry for the delayed response. CRKingston 04:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. In my fervour to sort everything out, I may have been a bit hasty and/or over-assertive in places. I've fully read the wiki help articles on categories now, and the 'exceptions' to the parent-child non duplication rule are applicable. I need to put back some of my changes - under the 'incomplete subsets' rule - so that eg. Svalbard appears in both the category Svalbard and the category Artic Islands. This applies because not all islands can be classified into subcats for groups of islands, therefore all island main articles must also form a complete list within "Artic islands". Live and learn! With your agreement, I will sort them out. And thanks for the other comments, I agree with everything except putting islands into the Arctic Ocean - surely readers can follow the "Arctic islands" category link? Bards 11:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
It all sounds good. I've not been clear about putting islands into the Arctic Ocean. I did that first, before I added the seas cats, and before you created the Arctic islands category. I agree with you completely that no island should appear in the Arctic Ocean category, and as I'm working through the seas (still not done), I'm replacing the Arctic ocean cat on the island article with the appropriate sea cat. You can do that replacement as well. I don't know if we have all of the sea cats created yet, so you may have to create a sea category to move an island from Arctic Ocean. CRKingston 18:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I propose deleting Category:Marginal seas of the Arctic Ocean, and moving all seas into "Seas of the Arctic Ocean". Reason: currently the reader needs to look in 2 places instead of one, and may not think of looking 2 places; and I see no special reason to split them up. Bards 23:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Marginal seas are a subset of seas, and the marginal seas category traces back to the Seas category and covers every ocean. Instead, let's put the marginal seas in both the marginal seas and the Seas of the Arctic Ocean category. This makes sense to me as being within the category guidelines. Agree? CRKingston 00:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
If we make "Marginal Seas of..." into a subcat of "Seas of...", it wouldn't be necessary to duplicate the subcats; but we could still duplicate the articles to make a full list in each "Seas of..." category. Currently the other oceans are inconsistent: Atlantic has it that way; Pacific and Indian do not; Southern does neither, and has no Marginals cat. Note that "Marginal Seas" is a subcat of "Seas". However, I am straying onto your territory here (pun). Bards 01:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Update
Category:Arctic islands now has a full list of main articles.
Category:Seas of the Arctic Ocean now has a full list of main articles.

Hey guy, I haven't been online for a couple days. I'm indexing a book this week, and it is so tedious that I don't have any brain power left for the Arctic Ocean (LOL). I'll check in with you when I'm back, probably Monday. CRKingston 21:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

CONSISTENCY[edit]

Hello. Please, make sure your contributions are consistent. You created "Islands of Asia" cat but didn't include subcategories to it. I have now made it for you. - Darwinek 11:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Darwinek - thank you. There already exists a primary classification of Category:Islands by country, which contains lists of countries. I have been populating "Islands by continent" in a different way, although only tentatively, while wondering if it should be there at all. What are your thoughts? Bards 11:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

As per our traditions here, all countries should be under each continent category, i.e. "islands of Italy" under "islands of Europe" etc. I have done it all yet. As for the Russian Lakes category now at CFD, relocate these articles as you suggested and I will then delete empty Russian Lakes category and close that CFD listing (I am an admin). - Darwinek 12:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, Darwinek. You may notice I have made a vast number of changes to the categories for Islands, and I freely admit to making a few poor decisions amongst them, aiming to clear them up later. See also my reply to you in Category:Islands of Europe. Bards 12:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, then move 'em. I assume your good faith, you have just made some wrong moves but this can happen when you do such a huge task. Next I wanna talk with you about "Islands by river" cat. - Darwinek 12:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
"Islands by river" already existed when I tackled the Islands. However it seems reasonable to me. What are you concerns? Also: I disagree with speedy-rename of Category:Lands with Arctic islands. I have posted my reasons in the speedy-rename list, but I am not sure if that is the right place to talk about it. Bards 12:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like better something like "Islands on the rivers" and without subcategories. Honestly, how much islands on the rivers do we have here... - Darwinek 13:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, wouldn't "Islands on the lakes" be more correct? - Darwinek 13:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how many yet, as many of the articles are still improperly classified. Maybe a few dozen? But there may be 100s or 1000s in the world which do not have articles yet. For consistency, I accept your implied argument: we should have "Islands in lakes" and "Islands in rivers". Or we should have "Islands by lake" and "Islands by river", with subcategories. I cannot decide which is better. Bards 13:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I would not include "the" in the titles, as it doesn't read well. "Islands in lakes" is fine, honestly. Bards 13:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
However, there may be proper geographical terms for "Islands in rivers/lakes" which I am not aware of. Is there an expert on this at wikipedia? Bards 13:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I am afraid it ain't here. However, we have various WikiProjects concentrating on several issues here. You can ask for help etc. there, Wikipedia:WikiProject Lakes and Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers. - Darwinek 13:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
As we are posing questions which we cannot resolve, I am happy to join those projects and discuss it there. I will refer them to this discussion, if you agree. However, that may not solve consistency issues, as each project may give different answers. Please advise! Bards 13:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure, refer them here. Discuss lakes in Lakes project and rivers in Rivers project. Consensus should be reached to make whole issue consistent. Our mutual goal is the same, to make better encyclopedia. I gotta go now. Bye bye. - Darwinek 14:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Indonesian Islands[edit]

I notice you making bulk changes to the organization of the islands. I would strongly suggest discussing the organization first, rather than making changes with having a consensus on what the changes should be. We have not heard anything about your proposed changes here Wikipedia:WikiProject Indonesia. (Caniago 16:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC))

Hi Michael, I will talk to you there. Bards 16:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Giant Space Magnet of Death[edit]

Hi Bards. Someone put that in my talk and I have no idea why. I was curious what it was too. –Shoaler (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

ok ;) I thought you had created an article cwith that title, and had it deleted. I thought it sounded quite funny! Bards 13:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Textile arts[edit]

Hello, Bards - I see you have been categorizing various stitches - would you be interested in formally joining the Textile Arts project? - PKM 17:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought you'd never ask ;) Bards 17:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
(grin) - PKM 17:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


Theatre categories[edit]

Hi -- I see that you're in some manner reorganizing categories for theatre-related articles, some of which I created. I don't have any objections, but I'd like to know what the prevalent philosophy is concerning assigning categories, so I do it correctly if I make more articles (which I plan to do). Can you give me a thumbnail sketch of what's currently accepted policy? I'd appreciate it greatly. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 07:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ed. My general plan is to go through all articles which have been arbitrarily dropped into category:Theatre, and move them into relevant subcategories, or sometimes (if appropriate) out of the theatre hierarchy. I want to end up with a good list of articles in category:Theatre which do not include theatre companies, artists, theatres, etc.
I am creating subcats where necessary, to move the articles into.
There seems to be an accepted hierarchy for geographical categories. For instance, if I am moving a theatre company "X Theatre" in "A town" - the categories are -
"A town" contains a subcat called either "A culture" or "Culture in A",
"A culture" contains "Theatre in A"
"Theatre in A" contains both "Theatres in A" and "Theatre companies in A"
This arrangement repeats itself at state level, eg. "Theatre in Ohio" or "Theatre in Wales".
And also at national level, eg. "Theatre in the United States" or "British theatre".
When creating new categories, a good hierarchy to copy is United States > New York > New York City.
Having said that, I have probably made some mistakes; and sometimes I am making temporary decisions, to be refined later into more precise categories. So feel free to move things again where they seem wrong. There are some which I am unsure about, eg. what is the Dance equivalent of a "Play" - are silent dance productions also called "Plays"?
So far, I've got the number of articles in category:Theatre from over 220 ish down to 100. Bards 08:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, it sounds good to me. The only change I've made so far was to put Prince Music Theatre back into the Music Theatre category, since they're a specialized company that only does various kinds of music theatre.
I've only worked intimately with one dance company, so I'm hardly an expert on that area, but I guess the equvalent of "play" in dance would be a "piece" or a "work". A number of pieces presented together would be a "concert". In the ballet world, the equivalent of "play" would be a "ballet". I'm not sure how useful that information will be to you. Although "ballet" is a fairly stable category, similar to "play", I don't know if "piece" or "work" carries that same importance, at least in terms of categorization.
Anyway, good luck, it sounds like a worthwhile project -- better you than me! {grin) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 20:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I enjoy sorting out categories - it's a good way of learning ;) Bards 02:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Appreciate you organizing the theatre categories but when you shift an entry to a category which has no content or other entries, you might want to reconsider what you are doing. Breschard 16:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Ignore above. There was a typo in your original category shift. Breschard 19:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Good work on sorting out all those categories and subcategories in Stagecraft. Nice one! Bryson430 12:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment :) Just a few dozen more to go now, and it will all be smart and shipshape...! Bards 15:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Welsh Dragon[edit]

I only created it as somewhere to dump the images. Feel free to delete it. Roger 12:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you leave a comment at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_17, saying you are the creator? Bards 12:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Binx picture[edit]

Oops, I didn't intend to remove the picture, sorry I got a bit carried away when snipping that section. Feel free to add it back. Mdwh 21:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

A note[edit]

At the AfD for Men in skirts, I think you have JzG confused with JJay. JJay wants the article kept. --Ezeu 15:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ezeu - Right near the end of the page, I've backed up JJay in his little debate with JzG, by adding a parallel reply. -?? :) It isn't meant to be a reply to JJay. Bards 15:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Aha, I see. I was apparently not paying attention. --Ezeu 17:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the thought though! Bards 23:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


What's with the blanking of my message? Aren't you proud of your edits?[edit]

Your now blanked response to my now blanked message makes my hair stand on end. You were "led to a possible error" and "imagined" things had happened, which 30 seconds study of the history would have shown you had not happened? And you take no responsibility because it was all somebody elses's fault...? I'll bring your practices up on WP:ANI and WP:RFCU if you try that again. And no, I'm not here (or there) to support JzG, I'm only here to defend WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Undue weight. Bishonen | talk 14:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC).

My blanking edit was titled as followed: "(removed crosspost by Bishonen. Please do not crosspost. A simple note is sufficient.)". This is the trouble with crosspoasting - debates can get out of synch. I decided to reply to you on Talk:Men's skirts instead. Please make your point over there. If you would like to copy your reply over there, edited as you choose, I will blank this section to avoid confusion. Bards 15:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Cross-Stitched Barnstar[edit]

Cross-stitch barnstar.png The Cross-Stitched Barnstar
I am proud to present you with this cross-stitched barnstar for Taxonomy Above and Beyond the Call of Duty in Wikipedia:WikiProject Textile Arts. PKM 21:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What can I say? My first ever barnstar. I am honoured, thank you! Bards 22:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Llandrindod Wells[edit]

Hi, I've replied to your message on my own talk page. --John Stumbles 23:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ikat categories...[edit]

Hello there. I didn't really understand why you would removed the 'weaving' category from Ikat. It is a weaving right? Well, I am sure yours was a good faith edit, but was bold and put it back. If you have a good reason for removing it, please do so but just say why in the edit summary. Kind regards and happy editing. Merbabu 01:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Merbabu, I am engaged in a project to organise and classify hundreds of textiles articles, here. You may notice that Category:Weaving has a new sub-category, Category:Woven fabrics; and within that is a further subcat, Category:Figured fabrics, which now contains Ikat. All types of fabric have been (or will be) put into one of the subcats of the new category Category:Fabrics. "Weaving", like others such as "Knitting" and "Spinning", is now reserved for general articles about weaving processes, issues, equipment, etc. You may notice that it doesn't contain any fabrics, except for Ikat which you have put back there. I will remove it again, and refer you here for the explanation. Bards 07:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Textiles[edit]

Thanks for your note. I'm in obsessive mode myself, which probably means that temporary burnout (at least on this project) can't be far behind. See you soon. - PKM 02:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Albert Hall, Llandrindod Wells[edit]

Circle-style-warning.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Albert Hall, Llandrindod Wells, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. Oo7565 20:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Castles and counties[edit]

Hi, thanks for your message. The edits I've been making are part of an on-going overhaul of the Welsh people and place categories. A significant number of these were unilaterally created without prior consultation by two editors. They chose to base their categories on the so-called historic counties only, and ignored present-day counties and authorities completely. This is clearly in contravention of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places). Furthermore one editor in particular, the main instigator in this (User:Owain), went so far as to deliberately remove references to the modern principal areas in numerous articles and replace them with the former counties, worded in such a way as to suggest that these represent the actual administrative units of Wales today (I can provided you with over a dozen examples of diffs which prove this if you wish). The people and places categories created for the old counties were not even, for the most part, accesible via the actual county categories, e.g. for Powys.

But to return to castles. I intend to leave the list of castles in Wales by historic county intact as it is in itself a valid list to which I take no great objection as such. But, and maybe I'm being too generous: the list was originally by modern principal areas and was changed to the former counties, again without consultation (at least there's nothing on the discussion pages). I intend to recreate the original list as Castles in Wales. All this work on the categories, still incomplete, has taken a considerable amount of time and I just have not got round to doing it yet. Please bear with me.

Hope that answers your query, which I can quite understand. You'll find more on this question of 'people and places' and the apparent political agenda behind it at the bottom of my Talk page. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and sorry for taking so long to answer. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Let me know if there are any problems (not everything's recategorised yet). Cheers, Enaidmawr (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Textile Arts newsletter[edit]

Happy New Year! WikiProject Textile Arts is starting 2008 by initiating a project newsletter. The project had 7 new articles at Template:Did you know in December and we hope to see more of you in 2008. Cheers, DurovaCharge! 20:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Textile Arts newsletter[edit]

Hello again, this month's textile arts newsletter highlights the expansion of top-importance knitting and good article candidacy for Palestinian costumes. We've had several more new articles appear at Template:Did you know and other exciting developments. Regards, DurovaCharge! 23:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Concrete slabs[edit]

Hi Bards, In the Design section of Concrete slab, you wrote "The corrugations run across the short dimension, from side to side." To my mind - assuming (of course) that there are two dimensions under consideration, one short and one long, at right angles to each other - "across the short dimension" is equivalent to "along the long dimension". My linguistic intuition suggests to me that you wouldn't have put it like that if that's what you meant. "From side to side" doesn't help me! For clarity, may I suggest "across the slab, perpendicular to its long dimension" (or similar, or vice versa)? (I hope that 'or vice versa' shows that I'm not just being difficult - I really don't know what you meant.) Buster79 (talk) 06:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I had some trouble phrasing that sentence. Perhaps "The corrugations usually run parallel to the shortest side" would be easier to understand? Bards (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Textile arts newsletter[edit]

Hi, the textile arts project had an exciting month in February: 7 featured pictures, 2 good articles, and 4 Did you know? entries. There's still time to join our featured portal drive. Our March newsletter has all the developments. Regards, DurovaCharge! 00:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Theatrical professions[edit]

Info talk.png

Category:Theatrical professions, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Cgingold (talk) 11:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Marginal seas[edit]

Note Talk:Marginal_sea#The_Mediterranean_Sea.27s_marginal_seas. - Shaheenjim (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:Theatre in Charlottesville, Virginia[edit]

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Theatre in Charlottesville, Virginia, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Theatre in Charlottesville, Virginia has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Theatre in Charlottesville, Virginia, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Image-Aegean_with_island_groups.png listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Image-Aegean_with_island_groups.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jordan 1972 (talk) 13:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Musical instruments by key[edit]

Hi Bardsandwarriors

I just spotted your note in the text of Category:Musical instruments by key asking for it to be deleted, which I will do now -- the speedy deletion criteria (WP:CSD) permit this per WP:CSD#G7.

However, just for future reference, whwn you want to delete a page you have created it's most helpful all round if you make your intentions clear by tagging such a page with {{db-author}}. Use of that tag rather than blanking the page has a number of useful consequences, one of which is that the page shows up promptly in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user. Just blanking it is a less explicit and less prominent form of request, which AFAIK doesn't show up anywhere except in Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories ... and that page is not regularly watched (until I started patrolling it in December, it was massively backlogged).

I also saw your note at Category:Musical instruments by key about possibly renaming Category:Transposing instruments as "Musical instruments by key". I don't have any opinion either way about that (partly because I know little about the topic!), but if you think it would be more a more appropriate name, then please feel free to nominate it for renaming by tagging Category:Transposing instruments with {{subst:cfr|insert new category name here}}

Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Theatre in Birmingham, England[edit]

I have nominated Category:Theatre in Birmingham, England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Theatre in Birmingham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 19:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Theatres in Birmingham, England[edit]

I have nominated Category:Theatres in Birmingham, England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Theatres in Birmingham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 19:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Stagecraft Newsletter[edit]

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Stagecraft at 13:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC).

"Desert of Wales"[edit]

  • I've not been happy with the title of that article for some time. Do you think it would make more sense to move it to Elenydd? There are plenty of refs in English to the use of that term - such as here and here - and it would be a great deal more geographically precise. What do you think? Obviously the article text would need to be changed around a bit, and expanded. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree, if they are the same; or it might be necessary to have 2 articles? Certainly "The Elenydd" or "The Cambrians" (in its narrow meaning) is how the range is locally known, and your suggestion would fit the categories better. But I don't know the exact extents of them, or how they might overlap with the Desert of Wales. Feel free to start hacking ;) Bards (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Technical fabric for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Technical fabric is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technical fabric until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Your tone and attacking comments on the AfD are uncalled-for. I don't think you do yourself any good with that kind of attitude, and suggest that you refactor your comments. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Overlapping theatre non-fiction categories[edit]

One of the categories you created is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Theatre#Overlapping_categories. We could use your thoughts. Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Theatre On The Steps[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Theatre On The Steps has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability, fails WP:GNG

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Romano-British road names for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Romano-British road names is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romano-British road names until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ritchie333 (talk) 10:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Fashion freedom[edit]

Category:Fashion freedom, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Robofish (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

New Wales Coast Path WikiProject[edit]

I see you're a member of WikiProject Wales and have contributed to Welsh articles. There's a new project, Llwybrau Byw!|Living Paths! under development which you might be able to contribute to. Lonely Planet rated the coast of Wales "the best region on Earth" in 2012, yet there is a very low number of articles on the history and culture of places along the Coastal Path and the many and various activities and attractions. This promises to be an exciting project as it gathers momentum with many Users joining in. Let's make this WikiProject, like the path itself, the best on earth! Cymrodor (talk) 08:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Xena: Warrior Princess, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)