User talk:Just Chilling/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

'alleged' / story about Madeleine McCann

I added in ' (though no details of any conviction have been published anywhere), ' on the Madeleine McCann page as these are living persons. If I were told '..convicted at X on date Y for ZZ offences' then I have something to go on. We don't have that yet. I'm a lawyer and have seen endless cases where the police and/or media push out this sort of comment. Do by all means revise me when you have that info.Red Hurley 11:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I now see that he (Malinka) has been living in Portugal for 7 years (thought it was 4), and is aged 22, so: either a) his crime was committed in Portugal - raising the question why they did not deport him, OR b) it was committed before he was 15 / 16, raising the question why the authorities knew of this and yet allowed him into Portugal. So when you say we cannot be confident on this - just that we haven't found any, you're using the argument used about WMD in Iraq. These are living persons so we have to be extra cautious about such allegations; wikipedia has been sued in the past.Red Hurley 13:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for picking up that sheep thing. -- John Reaves (talk) 04:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:WCN.jpg

Hello TerriersFan, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:WCN.jpg) was found at the following location: User:TerriersFan. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 06:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Question for you

As you seem to be online, can I ask you a question rather than pestering AN/I with it - from WP policy point of view, is there any rule re posting inappropriate content in the sandbox? User:Chinese3126 has just left this charming addition for the next visitor to stumble on — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing this to my attention. I take an essentially pragmatic view on matters; there is no place in Wikipedia for this sort of disgusting edit so I am am about to warn him first and will check the policy later! TerriersFan 23:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox Edit

Oh, I was just messing around with my friend on the Sandbox, I was telling him how Wikipedia works by means of the sandbox. I don't think how it would be offensive, I was just putting it in internet slang, by definition in internet slang, they did get pwned. Come to think of it, I guess the picture is kind of grotesque so I'd understand how even a few non-Jews would think of it as offensive. Anyway, it's the sandbox, I hope no harm has been done and here's your explanation. --Chinese3126 23:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi TerriersFan, I'm the one who made the article on Ernest Bowen Desilva Elementary School, but what would make the article be notable? If you have time to respond, please do. Thank you! Hirohisat 08:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What you need to do is to Google search to find articles on the school that highlight distinctive features - either achievements by the school or unique elements. A section with notable alumni would also help. TerriersFan 15:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

'Parishes of' categories

...are populated automatically by the UK parish infobox. Mauls 01:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. However, having parallel categories is still bad practice and can be fixed by a bot move. We also need to avoid places, such as Pilling being in both cats. TerriersFan 01:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Skegness Sealions

Hi TerriersFan, what are you views on the Skegness Sealions article that has recently been deleted? Why did you delete it? I will now restore it but please dont delete it again. Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjtheowl (talk • contribs)

Certainly there is no need for this article in addition to Skegness Basketball since they are the same club. However, I am doubtful whether the latter team meets WP:N. TerriersFan 16:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WELL THE SKEGNESS SEALIONS ARTICLE HAS BEEN ON HERE FOR THE PAST 18 MONTHS AND NO-ONE HAS SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THEM IN THE LAST 18 MONTHS AND I JUST UPDATED IT TO FIND IT DELETED. Who the fuck do you think you are to go around deleting things people have given there time towards. You must think you're the real dog's dinner. The worse thing is you live in a shitty area of the country, full of crime, and support a shitty League One football team. I tell ya you must always have shitty pants cos from all this i reckon you think your to good to even wipe your own shitty arse. Just have a thought for other people, eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjtheowl (talk • contribs) Also if you READ(a skill which you from the Leeds Scum area may find hard to do) the notability notes, it says you must contact the author before you delete. You just decided to delete it reguardless. If you noticed I also left a message on Skegness Basketball saying I would improve if, if you told me what to do!!!!! WELL AT LEAST EXPLAIN YOURSELF! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjtheowl (talk • contribs)

If you check your talk page you will see that you were previously notified that this article did not meet notability guidelines with the initial deletion being carried out by another admin. If you wish the page to survive then you need to establish notability to meet WP:N with reliable sources as WP:RS. TerriersFan 17:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

indefblock

I didn't realize that {{indefvandal}} was deleted recently. I was looking for a replacement when you fixed it. Thanks.  :) --Ed (Edgar181) 17:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Last warnings for egregious vandals?

Hi, I'm just wondering was it really necessary to give a "last warning" or indeed any warning to Ikilledmadelinemcann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If a little girl has been abducted, and someone registers a username saying that he has killed her, and then replaces the whole article about her with the words "She's fucking dead", and, when reverted, starts adding stuff about how she was raped and thrown into the sea and her eyes plucked out by crows, I can't imagine that it's appropriate to give that vandal a second chance under the same, highly inappropriate, username. Personally, I can't imagine that someone capable of such appallingly bad taste and such cruelty would start making good edits to other articles if given a second chance, but it they did, it would have to be under a different username. The reason I'm asking is that I tend to give fewer warnings to registered users than to IPs, and generally go straight to WP:AIV without warning if I see really, really malicious vandalism that indicates a vandal account. ElinorD (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The case you cite was one where I was about to block, when another admin got in first :-), since on reflection I had already decided it merited an immediate block. Any blocks have to meet the criteria of WP:BLOCK and the purpose is stop vandalism. I find that warnings (and I tend to place just two - level 2 then level 4) often stop the vandal and secondly they reduce the chances of an eventual block being successfully appealed. I monitor vandals who I have warned and persistent vandals invariably re-offend and get blocked. It needs to be remembered that blocking a SP account straight off is often ineffective since they just go straight out and create another user. HTH. TerriersFan 18:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I appreciate the explanation. ElinorD (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

My edits to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

Sorry for that, I really should have looked further into it and raised the point on the talk page. My apologies. WATP  ^(talk) • _(contribs) 23:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem; happens to us all. TerriersFan 23:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A. Halman

Hi. Can you see Talk:Suicide of Anna Halman#moving and merging for details? Is this normal to delete practically articles? -jkb- 10:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hey Terriers, I was just wondering if you could help me with a little problem. I can't figure out how to get some vandalism off of this image, [1]. If you could help me, it would be much appreciated. Thanks, Ben. Bmrbarre 19:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed - since this is a Commons image I edited it from here. HTH. TerriersFan 19:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Bmrbarre 20:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

More Vandalism

Hey again, this dude's gotta be stopped. Check out what he did to Marines. Not cool, not cool at all. Here's the IP: User:172.201.208.73. Thx a bunch, Ben. Bmrbarre 23:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have warned him off; let me know if he strikes again! TerriersFan 23:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I like the enthusiasm! Bmrbarre 23:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Signature cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Signature cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. TerriersFan 20:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

Let me respectfully suggest that when you're doing a significant rewrite of an article, use the Article undergoing major edits template. This may prevent others from removing dead links that should be fixed. Thanks. Ward3001 02:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I did use this template when splitting the article. However, I missed this link (and may have missed others). I simply asked that when you spot a dead link either fix it (or let me know, or raise it on the talk page) but don't delete it since it leaves the article without a useful link. TerriersFan 03:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You've been doing an excellent job on this article, but, sorry, I don't agree about the single sentence paragraph. Brevity is the soul of wit, so if you don't mind I'll change it back shortly - Rothorpe 18:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

User:The Rambling Man has made it clear that single sentence paras are against WP:MOS and they would jeopardise the article's GA status. TerriersFan 18:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Signature

I'm trying to cobble together a signature, but I think I'm messing up some how, I just don't know how. I left what should be my signature up on the user page right near the top. Could you proofread it or help me to figure out what's wrong? Please and thanks,Ben

Hi Ben, sorry, but this is outside my expertise. However, if you raise it on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) I should be surprised if someone doesn't sort it for you in fairly short order. TerriersFan 22:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for the tip. Ben

Thanks for the support

Uh, I'm getting sick of having articles I created be deleted. It always seems like an uphill battle. Must be Wikistress.

Well, thanks for your support. As I'm sure you know, I've had problems with Maria before, and I can't stand it that she just nominated something and then left it, as she said, "I merely nominated the article based on what it lacks...I'm not interested. Post your ideas/comments/etc on the article's talk page, where they belong and where people who are interested will see them and respond." Why must people do that? It seems to me that if you really care enough to nominate an article for deletion, you should have the time to help fix it up if that is possible, or at least put forth some other options. Maybe I'm too much of an inclusionist, I don't know or care any more.

Do you think that creating an article on Gesine Bullock-Prado would be a good idea? It could feature stuff from this article and more (see my comment on the AFD for more info.

And thanks for helping to improve the article. User:Bmrbarre

Its thin. However, I would seed the ground by adding Gesine as a co-producer in the WP MC2 article as a red link, always a good start, and reference it with her IMDb entry (important). But don't get too depressed. If it gets deleted then you can take it to appeal at WP:DRV when a different set of editors will see it. Take things a step at a time. If you lose again then there are two options; one is the Gesine article and the other is a merge into the locality article. Anyway, fix the MC2 article now, and await the AfD result. TerriersFan 21:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I suppose I must try to be more optimistic. I have some options, I see. Bmrbarre 21:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Lunds ASK

Would you care to give more of an explanation of your LUNDS ASK/SK Rockaden closure? I'm not sure I understand your reasons fully. Are you suggesting that if the article isn't better sourced after a period of time it might be worth nominating again? And what criteria are you using to evaluate these championships/members as notability indicators? FrozenPurpleCube 18:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If the article isn't better sourced over the next few months then it would, indeed, be in order for you to bring it back but it must be for you to judge whether it is worth doing. The championships are of the top division in their sport in their country, that allowed the clubs to represent Sweden in international competition; despite their only one being one source, it was a secondary source and there was no suggestion that these claims were false. The question of whether notable members make a team notable is an interesting one. The nearest parallel I have is with educational establishments where notable alumni are often considered to count towards notability. Also, successful results by a team depend on the team members (no members, no team) so if those members are notable it could be argued that they also contribute to the notability of the team. Whether these factors constitute notability, depends on an interpretation of WP:ORG which, as the preamble states, is a guideline not an absolute. If I had thought that this guideline was incontrovertibly met I would have closed as keep. However, because the sources were thin, but not absent, then no consensus seems right. HTH. TerriersFan 20:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've not yet been convinced that the championships are notable, as said championships don't have their own article, let alone sources for them in themselves. Not to mention the problem that arises when you have many dozens if not hundreds of similar teams. Covering them may be difficult, since the sources for many of them are likely to be thin on the ground, perhaps thinner than this team. And I'm simply not sure that notable people whose association with the team is not a significant act in their lives makes a good case for notability of that association. The only person who it was claimed provided notability by association doesn't mention being in the club at all in their article. I guess the way to put it is, while person X may be a member, if they never do anything as a member, did their membership mean anything? I would say no, probably not. If all they did was compete a little? How significant a contribution is that to their life? I'm not sure. People can join a lot of clubs, and it can mean a little or a lot. Anyway, perhaps this article will be improved, though I have my doubts, or perhaps the standards of Wikipedia will change. I have no outright objection to a no-consensus close, and if the article's not improved, it can always be nominated later. Hopefully it won't end up going through the same troubles as Daniel Brandt. At least nobody is claiming that it's lies, all lies. FrozenPurpleCube 19:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Boxer_text_editor entry

Hi TerriersFan,

I was surprised and disappointed to find that you had deleted what I felt was a neutral and informative entry for our product, the Boxer Text Editor. At the time I created it, I modeled it after other product entries so as to be in the flavor of what seemed to be allowed and accepted.

In the deletion log, there seems to be a reference to "notability." In looking over the products in the comparison table on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_text_editors

-- all of whose entries point to individual Wikipedia pages of similar form to what was once Boxer_text_editor -- I come away very puzzled. If Boxer is not sufficiently "notable" to be included in that table, then some two thirds of the remaining entries would need to be judged likewise. I am putting aside all prejudice in making that statement.

I don't think anyone would benefit from such a harsh editing of that comparison table, and that's not what I'm advocating. But I would like to understand how it is that my product was singled out from among so may of its equals and subordinates for deletion.

Thank You,

David Hamel

PS: In an effort to establish some notability, I offer the following links:

http://www.boxersoftware.com/pgrevi.htm

http://www.boxersoftware.com/pgcust.htm

http://www.boxersoftware.com/pgcoun.htm

http://www.boxersoftware.com/pgquot.htm

I would be happy to supply other information; just let me know.—Preceding unsigned comment added by David Hamel (talk • contribs)

Hi, the concept of notability is fundamental to all product articles (that is not to say that the articles on all competing products will meet this threshold; they may not have been assessed yet). Details of notability can be found by clicking here. Notability is established from reliable sources; click here. Typically what is being looked for are two or more independent reviews from reliable computer magazines highlighting features in which your product leads the competition. This should be sourced (for how to do it click here) from their website not from yours. You also need to say more about what the product does (in neutral terms!). I have restored a copy at User:David Hamel/Boxer so you can work on it (this page is a sandbox and not part of Wikipedia). I suggest that you allow me to look it over before you launch it again on a surprised world! HTH. TerriersFan 01:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: School violence

Hi, I think that the full protection of this article was a good shout, since it has bought us some time. However, we cannot leave it fully protected for much longer since we want the rest of the article to be developed. Also, whenever the protection is lifted Dezidor is going to come straight back and put the name in. The problem is not with the page but with the user. Consequently, my suggestion is that I place a formal warning for disruptive editing on his talk page and lift the protection at the same time. If he continues to reinsert the name then I suggest a final warning followed by a short ban, with escalating bans if necessary. What do you think, please? TerriersFan 16:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that would be the best approach just yet; the situation is being discussed on the OTRS mailing list at the moment and I'll let you know what happens. --bainer (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Algiers Coffee House

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Algiers Coffee House. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Puppy Mill 00:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am TerriersFan on freenode and I would like the cloak wikimedia/sean-whitton. Thanks. --TerriersFan 02:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

wtf?

This guy giving you trouble? --Butseriouslyfolks 02:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, sorry

I'm really sorry, I think I got confused as to what I was looking at there... a normal redirect to a user, etc etc. Sorry about the trouble. Mea culpa. 70.156.100.106 02:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

LASK

Thanks for keeping Lunds ASK. You have restored a little faith about Wikipedia being run through reason rather than guidelines. I consider deletion it a waste of time. True -- there are currently no reliable sources, but I can guarantee that there are articles about it in Tidskrift för schack [2] and Schacknytt [3]. But as I don't have access to old copies of those magazines ATM I cannot search them. And am I the only one who thinks it is inconsequent to delete such an article when there are hundreds of articles such as Brislington F.C.? / Fred-J 15:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Your cloak request

Unfortunately I could not process it because you did not supply a registered nickname on freenode. Please correct this and submit a fresh request. —Sean Whitton / 17:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on my Editor Review

Thanks for your comments on my editor review. I understand and appreciate your point of view. Unfortunately, I don't agree with it fully but I nonetheless appreciate your taking the time to communicate it.

To be specific, while I agree that it would be nice if all new articles were fully sourced and otherwise "up to snuff", I don't believe this is how things work in practice nor do I believe that this is how they should work. I believe in being WP:BOLD and starting out articles with a bare minimum and then allowing the collaborative process to improve it by adding to it or deleting it.

Moreover, I don't agree with you that your criticism of my action is a valid reason to oppose my request for adminship. Wikipedia is a large community and I believe there is room for civil cooperation among contributors with differing philosophies. I don't see how my approach to article creation is relevant to my ability to be a good admin. What admin actions do you think would be adversely affected by my "lax" attitude towards article creation? Do you believe that I would be any less objective in evaluating CSD and AFD nominations? I don't think I would be any less objective.

In any event, since you indicated that you would not support my RFA at this time, I wanted to let you know that I have been nominated for and have submitted a Request for adminship. You are invited to express your opinions there as well.

In keeping with the "no canvassing for RFAs" dictum, I am only canvassing those who have expressed negative opinions on my editor review and I am not canvassing those who have expressed positive opinions.

--Richard 08:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. The tally on my RFA is running 57/1/0 with the one "oppose" opinion being from you. Now, of course, you have the right to your own opinion and, in truth, changing your mind won't really affect the final result when the RFA closes in a couple of days. However, I figured I ought to try to see if there is anything that I could do to change your mind.

Upon further reflection, I have admitted in the Discussion section of my RFA, that creating Fire safety education was not the best thing that I have done on Wikipedia. It was really kind of lame and I think, in retrospect, that I should have given it more thought and been less lazy. That said, I still think that this mistake is not so grave that it should be used as a reason to deny me adminship.

So... in the context of my recognizing the error and apologizing for it, I ask you to reconsider the opinion that you expressed on my RFA. It's no big deal either way but I just figured I'd make the effort to convince you that I am, in fact, worthy of adminship.

--Richard 23:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Madeleine McCann?

I've observed your arduous work concerning the Madeleine McCann page, I feel that although it needs more updates, perhaps it's being disproportionately edited? Editors time and effort is being eaten up by one article, while other articles that require regular updates are being neglected. I was just curious as to your opinion on this? 82.20.51.180 13:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You make an interesting point to which there is no clear answer. I have always looked for quality in our articles and, if there is a choice to be made, I should rather have fewer but better pages. I should also add that since folks edit those articles that take their interest, less editing of this article doesn't mean that there would be more editing of others. TerriersFan 20:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please explain your inordinately long semi-protection. At first sight it seems an over-reaction. There doesn't appear to be a major vandalism problem, so are you saying that anonymous users can't be trusted? Thanks. 86.31.158.130 20:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

For most of the day the article was unprotected but it was reprotected tonight because IPs have been adding misinformation and unsourced facts. Normally, that is not a problem but it was today since, because of the pace of editing, mistakes were getting established. This article is under media scrutiny and its vital for Wikipedia's well being that we keep it accurate. Once things settle down the protection will be reviewed. TerriersFan 22:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Terriers, Here's an extract from the policy on semi protection -

Temporary semi-protection may be used for:

Preventing vandalism when blocking users individually is not a feasible option, such as a high rate of vandalism from a wide range of anonymous IP addresses.

Article talk pages that are being disrupted; this should be used sparingly because it prevents new users and anons from being part of discussions.

Semi-protection should not be used:

As a preemptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred.

In a content dispute between registered users and anonymous users, with the intention to lock out the anonymous users.

With the sole purpose of prohibiting editing by anonymous users. Protection should be used only to prevent continuing disruption.

I would regard your reason for semi protection as 'content dispute'. Since registered users are just as likely to add mis-information and unsourced facts as IP users the semi ptotection of this article is not warranted. Accordingly I would ask you to remove it immediately. Thanks. 86.31.158.130 12:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Skippy's list

Just out of curiosity, why was that entry deleted? The only reason I saw was: "Expired, uncontested prod". Which really doesn't tell me anything other than that someone felt it should be deleted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Geekartist (talk • contribs)

If an article has had a Prod affixed to it for more than five days, it will be normally deleted unless there are good reasons to the contrary - see WP:PROD. In this case there were no reliable secondary sources (see WP:RS) needed to establish its notability (see WP:N) beyond being an interesting curiosity on someone's website. If you want to research it and add the necessary sources I am happy to move a copy to your user space. TerriersFan 20:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that I'd be allowed to enter the information on Wikipedia. I'm married to the creator of Skippyslist. I assume that would be too much like him doing it himself, which I understand that Wikipedia frowns on. It's primary notability is popular military humor...that's pretty much it. So perhaps that's not what Wikipedia is looking for. Thanks for the feedback. I was just wondering, since I'd seen it here once before.

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Madeleine McCann.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Madeleine McCann.jpg. 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. BetacommandBot 06:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the image - it has been superseded by a better image and is no longer required. TerriersFan 16:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Spam in OK Nyelviskola

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on OK Nyelviskola, by Montco (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because OK Nyelviskola is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting OK Nyelviskola, 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. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate OK Nyelviskola itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 21:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Adriane Knoppix - so merge is it?

Your decision:

• The result was merge with Knoppix. The final version has yet to be released and the keepers have failed to demonstrate enough independent notability, at this point in time, for a separate article. OTOH there is no consensus to delete and there is plainly mergeable encyclopaedic material.
  

Where did you take that from? Sceptical Ben ^T/_C 12:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There was a balance of views between the keepers and deleters. At present there are insufficient secondary sources, or content, to underpin a separate article. This may well change in the future. Meanwhile. all the content has been retained and is accessible. TerriersFan 17:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree there are few secondary sources and that this might be a reason to say we delete the article. That was what the discussion was about, right? To delete or not. There were voices for deletion and voices for keep. You say a balance of views, but I guess this is your interpretation and interpretations might vary. I made a case with various arguments for keep which nobody refuted or even tried to refute. Now you just decide the article is merged into another? How is that? Without discussion? Because you are admin you can just decide about anything? --Ben ^T/_C 13:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the role's of an admin is to make a decision on AfD debates and in this case even the article's creator had merge as one of the options. As I say above, all the content is accessible to anyone seeking information on this project so is there a substantial difference between it having its own article or being part of another? As I say above, more sources and material may well come available in the future so if you consider, at that time, that the case for a separate article has been strengthened then raise splitting it out on the talk page when it becomes an editorial decision. TerriersFan 14:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your opinion on my RFA

My RFA has ended and I have been granted adminship. I will try to keep the point that you made in mind as I continue editing Wikipedia. Please feel free to give me feedback if you feel that I am not keeping up to the highest standards of Wikipedia.

--Richard 14:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject?

I have noticed that User:Student7 has several sandboxes which contain articles on Roman Catholic churches in Vermont. This is of interest to me, so do you think that we could start a WikiProject together, something like "Roman Catholicism in Vermont"? If so, what would be the next step in pursuing this? Thanks in advance for any help or advice, Ben 14:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, actually I have no real interest in this topic - I have been editing articles to assist User:Bmrbarre who is my adoptee. I have copied this to his user page since he may well be interested. TerriersFan 16:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Terriers, this is me, Bmrbarre. I was just wondering if it would be possible for me to create a WikiProject about that. I was wondering if you knew what steps I should take if this were even a valid thing, since you generally know more about it that I do. I sign as Ben because that is my name, and I like it better than Bmrbarre. Sorry for the confusion, but my question still remains: what should be the next step in pursuing this? User:Bmrbarre/Ben 17:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ben, the first step is to list the proposed project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals but first of all you might want to raise the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vermont to see how it would fit in with the wider project. TerriersFan 21:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Australian Labor Students

No. There were two respondents who argued for either merge or delete. There were four respondents who argued that the article should be kept. If this were a deletion discussion, I would take the matter to deletion review. Since it was a merge, and a matter of editorial discretion, I chose to follow the actual result of the AfD. It has already been discussed there; if you would like to merge, feel free to start a discussion on the talk page. Rebecca 16:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit Summary

Fair point. I do try to enter information when relevant, as you will have seen, but for minor points I don't. I must admit to being a bit taken aback by your comment. Sure, I could improve, but I'm not doing badly. I guess I'm just disappointed that, after a lot of work, I only get criticism and not thanks. Please reply on my page. Robinson weijman 18:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and I agree with it. Let's keep the article on Madeleine McCann at a high - or higher - standard. Regards. Robinson weijman 21:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated!

Thanks with the image i posted!Please respond on my talk page!Cheers!(Sparrowman980 22:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC))

Alverstoke

Many thanks for your efforts in helping a noob Wikipedian get Alverstoke up to scratch. Your tidying up of my many scrawls is greatly appreciated! VTSPOWER 10:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Show preview button

Please use the Show preview button to enable you to combine edits and reduce the number of Saves that you do. This avoids bulking out the edit History with lots of small edits. The Show preview button is located just to the right of the Save button that you use. Thanks. Hu 12:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

2007 UK terrorist threat

Why did you have to create this unnecessary page? Why? Abc30 17:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It is is not unnecessary - it deals with the broader issues and linkages. TerriersFan 17:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Editing..

Do you like causing inappropriate nuisance?? You seem to edit every single article, particularly relating to what I've edited using my extensive police knowledge. You seem to have edited the article 'Peter Clarke' using my comments, you appear to grasp no concept for anything pertaining to the Metropolitan Police Service. You may well be an Administrator, but I can guarantee that you probably were elected so through Wikipedians electing you. One of my most favoured intellectuals once said, "a Prime Minister may be elected, but he can also be kicked out".—Preceding unsigned comment added by PoliceChief (talk • contribs)

Perhaps you could tell me what your problem is? If you are unhappy with one of my edits please outline your view and we will sort it. Please also take time out to read WP:CIVIL and stick to the editing issues rather than make personal characterisations. BTW I thought your contribution on the spelling/title of Peter Clarke was very helpful, which is why I amended related pages. TerriersFan 16:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be nutty!

Could you see me closing controversial school AfD's? "Delete, delete, delete . . ." That would hardly be fair!  ;-) Thanks for your support! -- But|seriously|folks  03:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh; my fault for adding questions late at night after a tough day! Good Luck! TerriersFan 03:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks again! -- But|seriously|folks  03:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

I have attempted to make some changes to the timeline relating to Madeleine's disappearance, as those currently given do not tally with most reports (please see discussion on talk page). As I know you have an interest in this page, I would be interested in your thoughts. Another user has reverted my edits due to an erroneous perception that they were made to 'paint the McCanns in a bad light'. This, presumably by virtue of my other edits to the page. In any event, I fail to see how correcting the timeline (which is essentially a quibble about 15 minutes) makes any difference to the manner in which the McCann's are perceived.Snowbunni 12:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see the dilemma and there is undoubtedly a discrepancy between the sources. At the moment I thinking through some new wording to try to square the circle. TerriersFan 20:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. Snowbunni 20:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

TerriersFan, I've left a message for you on the DOMM Talk page, see current event tag discussion. Snowbunni 19:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Well, I was looking for a prettier way to do this, but I'm not very artistic, so I'll just say thank you for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I'll see you around the school scene! -- But|seriously|folks  08:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Caledonian-Record

Hey, Terriers, could you check out this AFD I'm involved in? I really feel strongly about this one, since it's fairly close to home (well, it is Vermont) for me. Everything in Vermont is smaller, so people tend to use that as a reason to delete the small stuff we have, and that gets to me. Being small in a small state does not take away from the significance of something (check out my comments on the AFD, I explained what I meant much better there). I hope I stayed civil with those comments. I tried, I really did. Back to my point, could you possibly improve the article and/or vote. If you feel it should be deleted, then please vote that way. Any comments are helpful, especially delete ones. And btw, is there a policy against editing an article and then voting keep, cause I got chewed out for it. Anyways, thanks a bunch, Ben 02:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no policy against improving an article then voting keep (I am about to do just that!); indeed it is encouraged. A satisfactorily improved article is always a good outcome to an AfD. TerriersFan 02:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I knew it! Hahaha, I was right. Muahahaha. No more evil laughs. Gosh, you're fast! Are you on Wikipedia 24/7? Oh, thanks for voting. Ben 02:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't voted on this one yet - I was referring to a school AfD I'm working on :-) TerriersFan 02:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. I though you were talking about that one. Anyways...it does seem that best, since if you feel an article is worth keeping and has potential, then you should try to get it to the next level. I dunno. Hey, isn't it about two in the morning over there! Jeez. Ben 02:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

03.25 :-) TerriersFan 02:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You must be whacked, on caffeine, or dedicated as h*ll. What does your companion/partner/whatever think of this, if you do have a...you know? Ben 02:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I am old fashioned enough to call my partner my wife :-) In answer to your question; not much :-( TerriersFan 02:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, just didn't want to step on any toes, esp. with you. Nowadays, you never know and you have to approack EVERYONE with the same amount of caution, since, as I said, you never know. Is she asleep...wow, it's 10:37 and my parents are on my back. Must be nice...Ben 02:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably, just odd but I don't like to leave tasks unfinished! BTW I shall declare on this article that I was canvassed since user page messages are traceable. TerriersFan 02:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, you were canvassed? I guess I haven't studied that, and my weak grasp of the word seems to tell me it means polling people for elections. Did I screw up again?Ben 02:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, no screw up, just read between the lines. TerriersFan 02:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I get it, you have to make it common knowledge that I invited you to check it out? That makes sense, I suppose. I'll have to remember that. Ben 02:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Formatting

Just some minor formatting stuff for the future: 1) should I put refs directly next to periods, or a space away,

next to the period (as I've fixed :-))

2) should it be two equal signs, space, title, space, equal sings, or drop the spaces entirely

optional, it makes no difference to the display. I drop the spaces but the really fussy editors put them in!

3)and is official site the correct term to use?

yes

4) Also, if I wanted to use www.llamaturkeyfuzzyaardvarkmunchkin.com as a ref, should I word it llama turkey fuzzy aardvark munchkin.com? Any advice on this minor formatting stuff? Thx, Ben 02:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

don't put spaces in URLs it will break the URL - try to user fuller references e.g. <ref>[URL title], author, publication, date</ref> > TerriersFan 03:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've got it now. Night-night. (shouts down hall, stalling for time as dad is yelling) I'm going to bed. You should be there too. Sorry I was keeping you. ("I'm in bed, dad!"). Ben 03:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hope Cemetery

I was wondering if you could review this article I created today entitled Hope Cemetery. I tried to use the new formatting, and I picked up a way to do the a, b, c, d, etc. if you use one source more than once. I really like the article, and was hoping that I could get it on DYK. Sorry about last night, I had just gotten back from work and was a wee bit too tired. And hyped on caffeine, meaning I didn't feel tired. BTW, I guess I should invite you to check out AFD's. Some guy voted delete because he saw that I had canvassed you...sheesh. Ben 16:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Its looking very good. Some thoughts:

• The reference should be outside the punctuation - you need to go through them and sort.
• Notes is a better heading than Sources
• The gallery photos need captions
• Expand the reference to title, author, source, date as above.

HTH. TerriersFan 16:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Category:Blue Ribbon schools

Hi TerriersFan, Some thoughts and questions: According to the article about Blue Ribbon schools, "The program recognized more than 3,000 schools from its inception through 1996". That's a lot of potential articles for the category, with about 300 new awards added a year; would it be a good idea to sort this out by state, either sooner or later? How useful will it be to know that a school was a blue ribbon school 15 or 20 years ago? Will that be any indication at all of the school's merit, say 5 to 10 years from now? Would it also be a good idea to have state lists (not subcategories) of Blue Ribbon schools? If I find any, I'll certainly add them to the list. Thanks for all your efforts. Noroton 19:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Great thoughts, thx. I agree that we should put them in state cats. I think that comparisons between states could prove quite interesting. TerriersFan 03:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Boldface in leads

Hi there. Please stop reverting my edits -- I'm only complying with WP:MS:

"If the topic of an article has no name, and the title is simply descriptive—like Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware or Electrical characteristics of a dynamic loudspeaker—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does, it is not in boldface."

Have I misunderstood the guideline? It seems to me that the tragedy does not have an official name - the article merely describes an event. I did explain in my edit descriptions and provide a link to the relevant part of WP:MS. chgallen 15:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I am taking advice from others - leave things be at the moment. TerriersFan 15:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Righto, will do chgallen 15:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have referred it here; since The Rambling Man is deciding on the GA assessment and is expert on such matters I am happy for him to referee. TerriersFan 15:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm not trying to be a Dick, I saw it was up for GA and thought it would help to make it comply. However, it's very rare for articles to comply with it anyway. See what he says. chgallen 15:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello guys, in my opinion (humble or otherwise), the manual of style most certainly says no boldfacing if the article name is "descriptive-like". I guess we're dealing with that situation so, in strict MoS style, it ought not to be emboldened. However, to pass a Good Article review, 100% compliance with the MoS is not mandatory. However, should the article go further (e.g. FA) this will crop up again. From my point of view as a GA reviewer, I 100% cannot fail it on that, even if it was 100% contradictory to WP:MOS so don't worry about that. I personally think it looks better emboldened, but that contravenes the guidelines. Funny old world, isn't it?!

So, my conclusion, leave it in compliance with the manual of style but be prepared, other editors who aren't up to speed with that paragraph will urge you to change it. Either way I won't let it affect my assessment of the article for GA status. Hope that helps. The Rambling Man 16:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That's good enough for me; and thanks to chgallen for raising it. I have removed the bold and put your advice on the talk page.. FWIW I think it looks better bolded :-) TerriersFan 19:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

Hey, I've just come back from my brief holiday and checking the history of Disappearance of Madeleine McCann it appears that some pretty keen edit warring has been going on. One of the key elements of passing the WP:GA is stability, and right now I'm afraid the article may not be stable enough. All of the edits you've made in accordance with my suggestions are great and I feel the article has improved no end, but right now I think it may have to be failed simply due to the edit war and discussions on the talk page. What's your take on it? The Rambling Man 11:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I hope that you had a great break and came back refreshed! Actually, I do think that the article is stable. Some time ago we split the article and that has settled down well, without any argument. I don't accept that there is an edit war going on. An editor tried to insert a MWWS link and this was sorted after one revert and a talk page discussion - hardly an edit war. Other edits have come from IPs - this is a prominent article and such edits are bound to arise. Consequently, perhaps you would reconsider? Are there any specific 'edit war' issues that concern you? TerriersFan 19:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for your advice, not being tremendously close to the article I very much value your evaluation of the situation. I'll re-review the article as soon as I can and let you know what I think. All the best, The Rambling Man 19:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(Also added to the article talk page) - I'm prepared to accept that my criteria for GA are possibly more stringent than those defined at WP:GAC. If you believe my reviewing technique to be questionable, I'll happily put remove my "ownership" of the review and allow someone else to review it. It's a touchy subject and I feel that it's one of those articles which may, sooner or later, attract a lot of attention. Perhaps the best approach, if you're determined to push the GA through, is for me to remove myself from the review and allow another editor to examine the article. Please let me re-assure you that I have no intention of "shifting goal posts". Let me know what you think. The Rambling Man 21:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It was a pleasure to pass it to GA after you'd worked so hard rewriting sections of it. I hope you agree that it's in a better state now and didn't mind just making the odd minor fix! All the best, The Rambling Man 18:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I-35W Mississippi River bridge

I would trust local news sources like WCCO about the number of missing rather than the Times. The number of missing is also at lead of the article and referenced. Could you delete this image? It was used to vandalize the article. P.Haney 02:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The Times is a paper of record renowned for their fact checking. The same cannot necessarily be said for local media sources. The image that concerns you should be tagged as requiring a licence to allow the uploader to justify it. TerriersFan 02:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean a fair use rationale? A duplicate image was deleted as an "attack photo"? The uploaders only edits were to insert the image. Your reference was removed as outdated. The Times article now mentions 8 to 30 people still missing. Also The Times article says the Army Corp of Engineers lowered the river by 30 cm when in fact the river was lowered by 60cm (two feet). P.Haney 14:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The Apprentice UK

Hello, Just Chilling/Archive 2 and thank you for your contributions on articles related to The Apprentice UK. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject The Apprentice UK, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of The Apprentice UK and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out and participate, please come over and visit us here for more information. Thanks! Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 19:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 19:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

St Thomas More High School for Boys

I note that on 14.03.2007 you added the incident concerning Mr Sloan to this page. Could you describe your motivation for doing so? Are you a present or former student/teacher of the school? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirana22 (talk • contribs)

I have never had any connection with this school. TerriersFan 02:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you please respond to the previously posted request to explain why in March 2007 you added this incident about the teacher to the St Thomas More Page? My specific purpose is to find out if it was a reversion or a fresh insertion. I checked some previous posts so I don't know which one applies. Tirana22 14:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This was a fresh insertion. In order to help to get this article through the WP:AFD I added what relevant, sourced material I could find from a web search. I spend much time defending schools articles, both in the US and the UK. TerriersFan 15:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

re: bolding the title

My bad, I didn't know MoS said that. SGGH ^speak! 01:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You are not alone; nor did I until it was pointed out to me!. TerriersFan 01:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Madeleine

I undestand your rv of my contributions on Madeleine McCann. However, I must explain that they were not a fruit from my imagination. Portuguese main TV networks were reporting exactly what I added to the article since police returned to Murats home and the McCanns apartment in early August. Miguelzinho 21:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am not in anyway doubting what you were saying. Simply that we need a reliable source to stand up this as an addition to the article. TerriersFan 00:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

A proposal has been made to merge Replacement I-35W Mississippi River bridge into I-35W Mississippi River bridge. The matter is being discussed at Talk:Replacement I-35W Mississippi River bridge. Please feel free to comment. Thank you. Kablammo 18:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Lakelands

As you said, it's close to sufficient. Looking at them all, Montgomery County may be one of the exceptions where articles can be written for most of the schools. But I agree with you that establishing the precedent for the merge is very important. I wouldn't expect much immediate trouble, and you will see why if you look at [4]. But I do not see just how it would work as a separate section following the existing article for the public schools, because it is done as a table. (Most of the school district articles are merely sections, which makes it easy.) Suggestion: Create an article Montgomery County Middle Schools. There's no reason not to have this as well as the table: you could put a link to it in the Middle School subheader box of the table. Make sections for each of them, and add the material for this one & link to the section from the listing for the school in the table. I think it will take some experimentation to find the best way for these articles. DGG (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

RfD

I noticed that you voted to keep the Wp:an/i and Wp:afd redirects at the Redirects for deletion page. I also voted to keep these redirect pages. I thought that if they were removed, then I would not automatically get to the pages I was looking for if I happened to type all lowercase letters, which would be pretty inconvenient. However, it turns out I was wrong. The software will automatically send someone to the appropriate page, even if they type all lowercase, and even if the redirect pages are deleted. It's just like a redirect, but without the redirect page. Deleting them will remove needless clutter in mainspace searches. With this knowledge, I wonder if you might consider changing your vote to delete. Thanks, and have a good day. Nick Graves 18:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Miami-Dade middle schools

I don't have any problem at all with summaries for those that have articles. In fact, I think it's a good idea, but if there's an AfD, I'd wait until it's over, so that we don't lose information. On second thought, everything is stored in the history of the article, so go right ahead. Whatever you think is best. But if some AfD discussion results in deleting the school article, I hope you'll restore whatever good information might have been lost. But I'll defer to whatever you think is best since I don't have a strong opinion. Creating that article was a bit of a test or an exploration for me -- I'm not at all sure what this kind of list should look like. If you think there's a better way to do it, I'd be interested in seeing what you come up with. Noroton 23:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Vistas high school

Today I spoke directly with Peggy Ekster, the Vistas High School Program Director, and verified with her that there was no high school named Vistas High School, that it was indeed a program under the Klein Independent School District. My changes had nothing to do with the "no consensus" vote on the AfD, it has to do with WP:V, and WP:RS. You have no sources that show a school exists named Vistas High School. I will send you Peggy's contact information via email. – Dreadstar † 21:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I see you do not have email enabled on your account. You can find Peggy's contact information on this site if you would like to verify yourself: Klein ISD Vistas High School Program contacts. – Dreadstar † 22:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As a compromise, I am going to move the article to Vistas High School Program which is an unarguable name and will make consequential changes to the District article.

I already did that, just change the redirect on the Vistas High School Program article. – Dreadstar † 22:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

TerriersFan, thanks for efforts on this. Even though I am in agreement with you as to how this should be handled, I think it is somewhat unfair to characterize Dreadstar's efforts to merge the article into the Klein ISD article as turning a no-consensus AfD into "effectively, another deletion move". He kept the information, including the source citations intact, except for some of the information which I had added only in the infobox and nowhere else. His edits could easily fall under the category of "being bold", and, though against the consensus as it is appearing to develop on the Klein ISD talk page, seems quite reasonable. -- DS1953 ^talk 23:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I got distracted in the middle of trying to figure out what was wrong with the thing. – Dreadstar † 02:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

A line break in the middle of the description, easy to get when you cut'n'paste, is what broke it. TerriersFan 02:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not exactly what happened, but the end result is the same. Thanks anyway. – Dreadstar † 03:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

RUSU: Opinion?

TerriersFan, I wonder if I could pick your brain briefly. I nominated Spark for deletion, on the grounds of non-notability, and you voted for deletion in the discussion, stating "Notability comes from reliable secondary sources attesting to the notability of the subject of the page". I've now been looking at Reading University Students' Union, and I reckon that fits the same description, in terms of lacking notability because of a lack of secondary sources, but I'm a little too aprehensive to nominate it for deletion. What's your opinion? Is it notable enough not to be deleted? I have no idea, but my gut reaction is 'no'. A second opinion would be greatly appreciated. Thanks ;) _TheIslander 00:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree notability is not established by sources in the article but a quick look around indicates enough sources that could be added to the article. There will also be editors who consider all such student unions notable. My advice would be not to go for an AfD but tag it for cleanup and start by removing that enormous list of officers cutting it back to just a compact table of presidents. For AfDs Lock Soc and Reading University Canoe Club both look like viable candidates. TerriersFan 00:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh I'm not just looking for articles to list; I'm not that cruel (yet) =P. I just wasn't sure on this one; kinda looked like it might be deleteable, but wasn't sure. Having said that, you're quite right about lock-soc and the canoe club, though. Thanks for your view ;) _TheIslander 00:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Truce

You and I see notability much differently, and that will often set us at odds of AfD discussions, but I admire your ability to fight for something you see worth keeping, even when I disagree. We're both passionate about the school issue, there's no reason for us to snipe at each other as we're both in it for the long haul.

That being said, I did today create Beaufort County School District as per your suggestion, and already there is an editor that says that school districts themselves are not notable. My argument would be that as a governing body for units that do have notability, and as institutions in their own right, districts are notable. This editor (at the Mossy Oak discussion) sounds like he wants a scorched-earth, no-school-left-undeleted policy, which I know you don't want any more than I do. Can you suggest a rock-solid policy that shows districts should stay? Cheers, Chris 01:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Though there are no written guidelines on what make schools notable some rules of thumb are worth going with. If we don't accept, for example, that Blue Ribbon schools are notable then we will spend too long on those schools that have something going for them rather than sorting out the many elementary and middle schools that are plainly not notable. I saw the comment but it is not one worth bothering about. There have been plenty of School District AfDs and they are cruise through. I will sort out a typical one and add it here as an example. TerriersFan 01:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Tracking down past afds is not easy! I have this one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brevard County School District but it is not terribly recent. I'll keep looking .. TerriersFan 01:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hand Middle School

Ok, done. I have some remaining concerns, noted in my comment, but since I feel that these need to be addressed at the policy level rather than applied arbitrarily, I've reluctantly changed to a weak keep. Jakew 13:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. TerriersFan 15:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas and Friends video releases

I disagree with this closing. I won't take it to DRV, because apparently there is a large number of articles like these. I'd like to AfD them all, but I don't know if mass AfD nominations go over well. At the very least they should be merged with list of episode pages. Since you're the closing admin, I'd like your opinion on mass AfD noms of categories of articles. i ^said 22:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with closing as no consensus is that pretty well everyone is unhappy :-) In an AfD the onus is on the deleters to win the argument. Here, where the contributors are split down the middle and there were no over-riding policy grounds for deletion, then this is a clear close.

In general mass AfDs should be avoided unless identical considerations apply to each page. What often happens is that editors lose patience and we have a trainwreck where the articles are kept by default. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Hawkins Elementary School for a good recent example. Mass AfDs for lists are rarely a good idea since the lists will be on different subjects and probably with the content organised in different ways. If you consider that lists should be merged then bringing them to AfD is not the way to go. The best approach is to put 'mergeto. and 'mergefrom' templates on the relevant articles and have a discussion. HTH. TerriersFan 22:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

And that's where I obviously disagree. Deleters cited WP:IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR. Keepers said it was too long to be in the article, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, claims of notability that were not backed up, and per X. Comments. I would say the deleters "won the argument", but that is your decision to make, not mine.

As for merging, the problem is that the only people who will see it are people who watchlist the page, which are people who obviously want them kept. Very few outside people i.e. neutral people, will be privy to the debate. Such is the fate at the Episode Article pages. I guess I'll do a bit more precedent research and opinion gathering before deciding what to do. i ^said 23:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Madeleine McCann article deletion proposal

Looks like I missed all the fun. I am away at the moment with limted internet access, which is why I am not contributing. Harry was a white dog with black spots 11:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Your fixing of school articles

I noticed you and DS1953 have fixed some articles I and others have put on PROD. Thanks for your work; feel free to remove all the other PROD's I have added if you can improve the articles. I wonder if it would be quicker rather than bringing school articles to AFD and PROD, just to ask you to fix them! Camaron1 | Chris 19:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL, TY! TerriersFan 19:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The Apprentice (UK)

Hello, Just Chilling/Archive 2 and thank you for your contributions on articles related to The Apprentice UK. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject The Apprentice UK, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of The Apprentice UK and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out and participate, please come over and visit us here for more information. Thanks! Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK Series Three)'s Peer Review-Review now please! 15:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Smile!

--Hirohisat ^Talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

You were the first Wikipedian I encountered here. Since then I have been very happy here editing =).

Thank you; glad you enjoy the place! TerriersFan 01:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Melbourn Village College

Hey. I just wanted to pop by to say thanks for all your edits to the article today, they have made the article look much better :) Not so sure about the accademic section, as only about 50% of pupils get 5 or more a*-c incl english and maths. :P  Tiddly Tom  21:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - I'll get the GCSE figures in! 21:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Talk:Beaufort County School District

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

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Talk:Beaufort County School District, 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. CSDWarnBot 15:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Marvin the Paranoid Android

On my Talk page, you wrote in part:

Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.

Can you honestly not see that I have been discussing this on the Talk page for over two months? It is me that started, and who is trying to encourage, a discussion. I revert because of an absence of discussion. You also included links to the guidelines. As far as I can see, I am the only one following them. HairyWombat 01:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I placed the guidance on your talk page after you made the same edit three times. This was standard template wording and is normal practice to avoid you inadvertently breaching WP:3RR. Were you to breach 3RR then a 24 hours block would be likely to be implemented. I would add that a revert shortly outside the 24 hours would likely be treated the same way. I appreciate that you used the talk page but, as I put on the talk page, your links have now been removed by four different editors, an unusual occurrence. So far, you have had no support from anyone. External links are being viewed increasingly critically on Wikipedia and getting these accepted looks an uphill task. My advice has to be to give them a rest.TerriersFan 01:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Gold Star Chili

I wish that you would give me a chance to convince you otherwise before slapping an AfD tag on the page. It is a candidate for expansion, which User:Mind meal seems to be working on, and not deletion... youngamerican (wtf?) 19:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the article has been around for nearly a year without any notability asserted in the article. As always, if you can source it up to demonstrate why it is distinctive compared to many other similar restaurants in many towns and cities that's fine. TerriersFan 19:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you be willing to extend the courtesy, from one admin to another, of withdrawing the AfD for a week or so until I can do some research and get soem sources lined up. If I still haven't been able to show WP:CORP is met by by then, I wont stand in your way of an AfD (hell, you could even speedy it then if you wish). youngamerican (wtf?) 20:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, withdrawn as requested, always happy to help :-) TerriersFan 20:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Muchos gracias. I will try not to disappoint :) youngamerican (wtf?) 20:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm also trying to light a fire under the buts of Cinti-based editors, too. youngamerican (wtf?) 20:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You might want to mention that the article could do with some reasonably flowing prose with proper references rather than adding links to external links? TerriersFan 20:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll work on it. I've been using my admin mop (revert, rollback, warn, protect, yada yada yada) so much lately that I almost forgot how to work on expanding an article. It'll be good to shake some rust off. youngamerican (wtf?) 20:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Goddammit

I've been in bed sick for a week. I just woke up, and noticed Nation's had been deleted TEN MINUTES beforehand. I am in stunned disbelief. I was almost feeling good enough after my protracted illness to provide a lengthy dissertation on its notability - nigh-legendary to East Bay residents - until I noticed my infirmed bedtime schedule made me fall far behind Wikipedia's. I mean, come on, man... MC Hammer took his kid there, man... (and in doing so, caused homesickness to legions of erstwhile East Bay dwellers)... MC Hammer... I don't know that it gets any more notable than that. I think I've now made this my own personal crusade. If I recreate it, will it just get speedeleted? Anyway, I know where I'm going for breakfast as soon as I feel well enough again —Wiki Wikardo 17:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
And my spotty Internet connexion is keeping me from posting this and it is a cold, grey summer day outside, and that thin envelope from the landlord taped to the door looks foreboding and oh, I can tell what sort of day this is going to be.

Hi, I am sorry about your illness. On the article, though several folks insist that it is notable, no-one has been able to source any notability so far. For example, the link above is a Bebo blog which doesn't meet WP:RS. If you just recreate it then yes, it will be speedied. If you can work up properly sourced notability in your sandbox then recreation can be reconsidered. I should be happy to look at, and comment on, a future draft. TerriersFan 22:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Giant squid AFD

I guess I'm confused as to why if there is no appropriate merge target that advocating merger blocks deletion. Otto4711 18:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge is a keep in a different form. For the article to be deleted there needs to be a clear consensus for deletion over the combined keeps/merges. If you wish to merge the article into Kraken in popular culture or elsewhere then feel free to add the mergeto/mergefrom tags and start a discussion. TerriersFan 22:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, merge is a form of keep. But it is also an acknowledgement that the article should not exist separately. But if the suggested merge target is clearly inappropriate, as you acknowledge that it is, and there exists no suitable merge target, then the acknowledgement that the article should not exist separately should be taken into account. Otto4711 23:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point but there still wasn't, in my view, the consensus needed to delete the article. TerriersFan 23:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Caroline Chisholm School

Done. Nice work, by the way. Jakew 20:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. TerriersFan 20:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Audioslave album

I hadn't noticed because they weren't linked in the AfD... oh well, better go and redirect them! ... Done.ELIMINATORJR 23:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The Gold Star Chili article

Gold Star Chili, what do you think? User:Mind meal has added a bunch of stuff, and I did a little bit to add some international context (who'd guess that you can get in in Syria and Palestine of all places?!?!). LEt me know if it is keepable in you opinion now. youngamerican (wtf?) 13:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, yup, it's now keepable - well done to all! TerriersFan 03:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Schools proposal

Sorry for the slow response; I have now given my comments on the issue at User talk:TerriersFan/Schools‎. Thanks. Camaron1 | Chris 13:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Robot Chicken

Hi,Sorry about mistyping the redirect -- as I said when closing, this should go to the episode list. I didn't realize you intended to extend the AfD to all 44 episodes (I thought you were speaking theoretically only.) As a practical matter, one AfD for 44 articles is a bad idea; as a procedural matter, since the other articles were never tagged for an AfD, the AfD can't apply to them. I consider the AfD to apply only to that one episode -- broader questions concerning the entire series are best handled at RfC, Centralized Discussion, or article talk pages. An omnibus AfD would be an invitation to chaos; and (if I were to hazard a guess) would have a high probability of being closed as either as procedurally defective, or as no consensus. AfD is not the right place to handle that kind of question, since one would not really be asking for deletion, but rather en masse redirection.

As for the images, I believe community consensus in general disfavors images in "episode list" articles, a decision taken after a controversy at the Simpsons list. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for this helpful response. TerriersFan 19:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Bayern - Norwich

I did a massive rewrite, but I'm getting endless edit conflicts. Can you leave it for a few minutes, I'll insert my version and then fix your amends. --Dweller 15:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

OK - suggestion - put((editing)) on it and remove it when you are done. TerriersFan 15:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. Good thought. --Dweller 15:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm done. Please do add that cited claim. Nice one. Let's hope it doesn't all go down the pan. --Dweller 15:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey

ONLY because YOU asked, Mr. Save Our Schools Articles, I grabbed the two New York Times articles you asked for (I didn't even look over any others). They were PDFs and I printed them out. Do you have them already? I was moving things around on the page and found you were also making changes, so I took my version and put it on my user pages. Sometime tomorrow (I'm going to bed now), I'll look over what you've done and see if my ideas might fit into that (I was going to split it into three sections, top, "History" and "Community involvement"), but again, only because You're The Man with school saves, I'm going to defer to you and see what you do to the place. Please leave me a message on my talk page to tell me if you got the NYT articles. I get to grab 100 a month from the Times as a subscriber. If I could send them to you, I would, but I don't think they'll let me copy them (I haven't tried yet though. If I can, you'll be getting an email). Noroton 04:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ugh! I see you've already got at least one of the Times articles. It turns out that I can in fact save the PDF files, and I'm sure I can insert them into emails. If you ever need any Times articles, just ask. G'night. Noroton 05:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• • I've sent you an email. This is frustrating. I don't see a function in Wikipedia email that lets me attach a file, and I can't figure out a way to copy the content into Wikipedia email (I've tried several ways). I've emailed you my own email address, and if you give me an email address I'm sure I can send it directly. Or perhaps you know how to do it through Wikipedia email. I can't just cut and paste it, even as a picture. Please advise because I'm stumped.

• • I saw your objection to the nom. I need to review article nomination policy before I comment there. I'm often a bit hazy about some aspects of what you brought up. I'm not entirely sure where an AfD nominator's obligations lie. Noroton 17:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • BTW (noticed due to edit conflict), I have Times Select (among other NYT sources). The first article was about a strike at MPHS, remarkably included in the Times as it occurred in Chicago. The other article was for a strike at another school after MPHS students were moved there, which I assumed was less notable here. As I note below, this was yet another easy save from the clutches of AfD. Keep up the great work, both of you, and all of us; this is really snowballing towards clear consensus on high school notability. Alansohn 17:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ugh! I just did send you another email not 15 minutes ago. Could you please check your email controls. Could it be that it's going to another email address than the one you think it is? Noroton 14:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Got yours, sent mine. I'll be online another 10 mins. Noroton 15:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

High school notability

It still amazes me how little work is necessary to improve most high school article, a la Morgan Park High School. It seems clear that consensus is that high schools are notable, and there is more and more of a buzz in AfDs to this tune. Rather than trying to agree on standards for notability of such schools ("we all agree that a high school is notable if it meets the following..."), I suggest that we use the WP:OUTCOMES process to document that schools meeting certain characteristics have reached a consensus of notability. It's time that we could stop having to fight each skirmish on AfD as an individual battle that needs to be fought over and over again, with the same determined minority choosing "Delete" regardless of the merits of the particular article or the broad consensus that has been reached. Alansohn 17:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Retiring

Hi. I am going to retire from editing Wikipedia and I would appreciate it if you protected my userpage. This will most likely be my last edit unless you, for some reason, can not protect userpages. Thanks!--eskimospy (talk • contribs • review me) 23:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Scope

This is a most useful bot but its scope is too narrow. Many schools are not in Category:WikiProject Schools. Can it be asked to crawl around the subcategories of Category:Schools, please? TerriersFan 01:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What would it do on such pages? I wrote it specifically to use {{WPSchools}} so it was only open to pages using that template. I'd be happy to discuss it with you, please put further discussion on my talk page. Adam McCormick 02:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I can easily set it loose on Category:Schools, the only debate right now is what this would do to Category:Schools. I'm happy to do it but I've asked for a little guidance on how to procede from the schools WikiProject. I'm worried that just setting BoxCrawler loose may be inellegant. Adam McCormick 20:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Dravidian civilizations

Can you kindly show me one of those "plenty" of sources which say the article is a valid concept? Waiting for your response. Gnanapiti 21:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources were shown in the AfD and there are other sources that can be found with searches. However, please note, I stated that the 'concept' was valid - I didn't say that the present content of the article could be validly to the concept; that is a matter for editorial discussions. For an article to be deleted there needs to be a clear consensus or over-riding policy reasons and neither case existed here. TerriersFan 21:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

All of those so called sources shown in the Afd were proved either fake or not relevant to topic. There are absolutely NO other sources that can be found with searches. What I'm saying is what you've stated is wrong. The Concept is NOT valid. In addition to content in the article, the title itself is disputed. Until someone comes up with "plenty" of sources or sources that can be found with searches I'm going to add the Hoax tag back to the article. Thanks Gnanapiti 21:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

TerriersFan, Gnanapiti has added back the hoax tag to the Dravidian civilizations article here. Is this permissible? Wiki Raja 23:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikiraja - your time will be better spent if you would add some refs for the first sentence of your hoax. Sarvagnya 06:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Pleasant Ridge Chili DRV

Just a short note back, re your comment at the Pleasant Ridge Chili DRV.

All the best and thanks :)

FT2.

Dravidian civilisations

Hi, I'm surprised that you think there was no consensus. If you read the discussion, you'll see that everyone who voted delete was asking Wikiraja (the author of the article) to cite the very first line in the article. It is still uncited. Instead of providing citations, he's just stonewalled with just his assertions and nothing else. And as for it not being a hoax, well 90 percent of the article is cited.. because it is copied and pasted from several different articles! The thing here was that this artificial stiching together of random snippets from several articles is OR, synthesis and consequently a hoax. I request you to take another look at the close and if need be leave it open for some more days. Also if you note, apart from Wikiraja and a couple of others, many others who voted keep are strangers to the subject and were evidently fooled by seeing the citations(none of which, incidentally is Wiki Raja's work). Sarvagnya 02:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, please let me ask you to show a little civility towards myself and other users who have voted to keep the article. Thanks. Wiki Raja 03:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Wandu Mountain City

I sincerely ask that you take a look at the evidence here and give this issue some more thought. The "official" name designated by UNESCO is not necessarily the common name. "Wandu Mountain City" is not used in any of the reliable English publications. Cydevil38 17:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

Yes, I had just read that on the main MoS page and at Wikipedia:Lead_section#Bold_title, and was about to correct myself when I realised you had beaten me to the punch :D Sorry about that. Extraordinary Machine 18:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

YOu told me not to remove the lawyer's statement. The source for it was a Brit news site and claimed Kate McCann asked for arguida status. I live in Portugal, watch Portuguese TV and it was told the Judiciary Police had declared her a suspect. I suggest you find something to back up the lawyer's remarks, because if SHE asked for it, it makes every news outlet, except the one cited, look like fools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maluka (talk • contribs) 14:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops forgot to sign. You wrote "Please do not remove sourced material; for example the lawyer's statement. Also we don't use newspaper reports quoting 'sources' - we rely on actual statements. Please use the ((cite web}} format for references. Thanks. TerriersFan 17:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)"

You don't use newspaper reports quoting 'sources'? The why is the lawyer's statement taken from "http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/06/nmaddy306.xml" was used?

I can't find this anywhere else. I live in Portugal, watch the news, have followed every aspect and it was never mentioned Kate McCann requested this status. If she had, all the papers are wrong, the TV reporters are wrong and I sense the hand of one of their team in editing this. It changes everything.

Please find other sources to back it up or I'll keep taking it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maluka (talk • contribs) 14:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It's quite simple really; if you are not happy with any sourced content you take it to the talk page. If, instead, you remove it unilaterally you will get blocked from editing. TerriersFan 19:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: penguins

That works for me – go for it! - KrakatoaKatie 19:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! TerriersFan 19:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Madeleine McCann? (2)

Hi TerriersFan, Perhaps you could address the points I made earlier today regarding Wiki policy on semi protection in the Madeleine McCann? section above. As noted there, I think you need to unprotect the article. 86.31.158.130 20:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I answered the point above. Let me clarify; I trust some anon editors but not others. We have periodically tried to leave the article unprotected and when we do we get some excellent edits but also damaging vandalism and misinformation; and when the pace of edits is fast sometimes misinformation gets missed and becomes 'established'. For such a high profile and sensitive article it is important for Wikipedia's reputation that we take all practical measures to maintain the article in a responsible and accurate state. If a registered editor is disruptive we can deal with this more straightforwardly than with disruptive anons since blocking IP addresses often has collateral damage for innocent users. If you wish to edit the article then register a handle and make a few constructive edits to other articles. I understand your concern but the risks in unprotecting outway the benefits. TerriersFan 21:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You are not adhering to Wiki policy and you are abusing your position as an Admin. I have reviewed the edits to this article and there is no reason at all why it should remain semi-protected. Please unprotect it immediately or I'll take the matter up elsewhere. Thanks. 86.31.158.130 21:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It is open to any admin to unprotect the article. In view of your concern please post an unprotection request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection then the protection will be reviewed by a hitherto uninvolved admin. TerriersFan 21:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have also invited any comments from User talk:The Rambling Man#Semi-protection of Disappearance of Madeleine McCann who is a recently involved admin. TerriersFan 21:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well it's late for me, but I'd say 250 odd edits in the past 36 hours is indicative of a high-profile article. It's essential that edits are made in accordance with the various policies, and most pertinently WP:BLP - Madeleine's parents now have arguido status. We need to be careful what is stated within the article. I'm happy for the article to remain semi-protected. No big deal... If people have things to add, they should take it to talk page and we'll go from there. The Rambling Man 21:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

Hi, thank you for your interest in making sure Disappearance of Madeleine McCann complies with WP:BLP. While I agree it would have been inappropriate to add the material earlier, surely it is relevant now that the parents are both official suspects and charges are probably iminent. Hermitian 02:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a note to thank you for your invaluable work in fixing the details of Portuguese names. TerriersFan 22:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Aw, shucks, thanks. Rothorpe 22:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Rick Allen (organist)

Thanks for your help! Cricketgirl 22:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The Child School

Re: the article move to "Child School", I've offered some evidence on Talk:Child School as to why I believe it should be moved back to "The Child School". – Zedla 23:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

LEAD bolding

You didn't actually revert but just changed the first few words (thank goodness, because the previous first sentence was incredibly limp). The MoS sections you cite do not advise going out of your way to avoid bolding but rather do not mangle phrasing simply for the sake of bolding. I did not mangle phrasing and I don't see the reason to avoid bolding for the sake of it. The vast majority of Wiki articles bold the title and there's a clear expectancy that it will happen unless there's really no good phrasing that can be thought up; there is no especial reason that it shouldn't be done in this case. Marskell 20:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As you will have gathered by now this is not really my scene. The original discussion was at here which arose as part of the GA review. The advantage of not bolding the lead is that it allows the sharper lead as now presently drafted. TerriersFan 20:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

or as was drafted :-( TerriersFan 20:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sharper? Yes, I agree the first sentence should have no excess. It should impart the defining details clearly. But I do not view either:

• "The disappearance of Madeleine McCann occurred on..."; or
• "Madeleine McCann disappeared on..."

...as sharper than the other. The former is somewhat longer, but both are sound in terms of phrasing. The former also agrees with the practice on virtually every Wiki article. Plus, the former phrasing will avoid someone asking every few weeks why there's no bold in the first line. Marskell 20:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

To be more friendly

I just re-read my previous posts and thought that I sounded needlessly brusque (an "old contributor" problem). I see that you and 'Harry was a white dog...' have put an enormous amount of effort into this page. I really do think the LEAD is better off with bold, where the meaning isn't compromised. But I don't mind talking about things in general, if you have any uncertain points with this page that you want to raise with an uninvolved editor. Marskell 22:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the offer which is much appreciated. TerriersFan 23:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Good job

Good job on the update to the "suspects" section. The only niggle I have is that McGuinness is quoted as saying Kate denied that Madeleine's blood could have been found in the car, yet there is no previous mention of the forensics in that section. The first mention is the Brunt quote which occurs on the 10th. It seems to hang out there by itself, and it looks a bit odd to have Kate denying something that appears to have been said only three days later. I can't think of a way forward at this stage. Maybe we can move a general mention of the forensics up? Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I need to sort out an extra source first for the 'possible no charges' then I'll get onto this (been at the cricket all day which is why I've been slacking :-)). TerriersFan 19:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't talk to me about cricket. I am in a funk about the Cockspur Cup result! Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Done a McGuinness fix. Howzat? TerriersFan 19:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Now I have another dilemma! Do I give you out or not if I agree with the change? I think that's the best. The general denials that they have both issued are sufficient, so there is no need to go nto the specifics except in this specific area, and the new location of the quote is better. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Response to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann

Thanks, and I should thank you for your much more valuable contributions to the articles, including the removing of inaccurate and/or poorly sourced information. The coverage of the case is interesting to me on so many levels (particularly how the media has responded to recent events), so it's good to know that I can look at the articles here for information and updates — particularly given that many mainstream news outlets seem to resort to speculation and subjective commentary so easily. I wasn't aware of Parris's journalistic style, so I don't mind if what I added is removed if you think it doesn't belong there. I agree it is rather funny reading articles written by journalists that criticise other journalists for their coverage of the case... or how about reporters stationed in Rothley commenting on the heavy media presence in Rothley! Extraordinary Machine 00:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the Parris addition is a very good edit since he makes perfectly valid points. It's just that, when I'm sneezing all over the place and feeling sorry for myself as tonight, I get intolerant of humbug :-) TerriersFan 00:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok, hehe... I hope you feel better soon. Hey, you should drink some hot lemon and honey — it doesn't always work for me, but the flavour relieves the "feeling sorry for myself" part :D Extraordinary Machine 01:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

LoL thx - I'm off to bed :-) TerriersFan 01:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Bold

Hey. Read the talk page. Jooler 00:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have, and I have also seen your warning for edit warring on Wikipedia:Lead section. We don't edit war here, we edit by consensus, so please try to persuade people since unilateral actions are not acceptable. TerriersFan 00:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not yet received an apology for that warning which was placed on my talk page without the poster being fully aware of the facts. I was stopping a user who was changing WP:Lead repeatedly, in an attempt to change the guideline without even attempting to gain a consensus (which is now somewhat ironic), tantamount to vandalism. He was subsequently blocked for reverting United States 11 times (Special:Contributions/Abtract) . See Talk:United_Kingdom#Disruptive_behaviour and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive297#User:Abtract_-_disruption. Jooler 00:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Madeleine notes

They seem to have gone wonky! Fixed, thanks! Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Stuff

I'm not going to barnstar a fellow admin but I wanted to let you know that your work at Madaleine's article is super impressive. Keep it going, I'm sure it's not easy with the volume of traffic there. Don't fail to shout for a hand if you need it... The Rambling Man 19:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks; will do. TerriersFan 20:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Bolding

I have posted to the talk page. I provided six diffs within the last thousand of random just-stopping-by editors bolding the first line because that's what we do on Wikipedia. You have no consensus. This isn't actually about consensus but about WP:OWN. And bloody hell, if you're going to revert an established editor do it with you're own edit summary and not as a bot. Marskell 20:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

FWIW I have never used a bot and wouldn't know how to if I wanted to. The point I made was that a new discussion started; I didn't claim a consensus on your talk page I politely asked you to join the discussion so we can gain a consensus. What I said was that non-bolding had been established and explained that I reverted to hold that position pending talk page consensus. Reasonable surely? TerriersFan 20:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, let me clarify: I'm perfectly clear that you're not using a bot, but 'Undid revision 158084584 by Marskell' is robotic. And insulting. You have no consensus. You have nothing that's been established. What you have is a very serious case WP:OWN. You have been robotically reverting anyone who has bolded the first line for months; I've looked at the history. Wikipedians strolling by don't seem to agree with what you've "established" with approximately three other people. Why are people bolding? Because that's what every page does. On average, there is a bold and a revert every four days in the history. Carry on, if you like. I will continue to bold every time I view the page, where I am within policy. If you'd like to take it to a wider forum, then let's. Marskell 20:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a personal opinion but your time would be better spent ensuring the article is factual and readable. This troublesome case of whether to bold or not is a waste of energy. The Rambling Man 20:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Archaeological site

I'll happily do that, but my magnifying glass continually draws a blank when I ask it to take me to one of the above words in the (now rather long) article (plus 'dig'), so please let me know in which section it is. [Please see below.]

While we're at it, I have to admit I was a bit surprised when you removed this paragraph on speculation grounds: 'The Observer reported on 16 September that crucial evidence may have been lost by the time the first police (GNR) arrived. Police in Lisbon had criticised the local force for focusing too much on the suspect Robert Murat..' First sentence speculation, sure, but 2nd rather a typical bit of local colour, & part of the story, I thought. Perhaps I should have phrased it the other way round. Rothorpe 21:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you mean in the Praia da Luz article. Silly me! Rothorpe 21:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Bit of a pile of junk, is the main thrust. Rothorpe 21:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph based on the wording "The startling admission, ahead of a crucial ruling this week by a Portuguese judge on how the case should proceed, came from sources close to the four-month investigation.". If you look through the article it is wholly based on unnamed sources. Who are "The sources said that ..." etc.? We can't, in my view, add things to an encyclopaedic article based on unnamed sources. TerriersFan 21:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

So it is. And there I was saying you couldn't trust the Daily Mail... Rothorpe 22:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Red Links

Regarding this edit, please note that per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) redlinks are OK. Both of the redlinks you removed are ones that will be created. Per WP:BIO a state legislator is automatically notable, and the law professor is referenced in another article and is the head of an important constitutional law group. Per Wikipedia:Red link, red links are OK. They should only be removed for topics that will never have articles, not ones that just don't yet. In fact they can be helpful so multiple articles about the same person are not written since a uniform nameing convention has been adopted and hopefully an editor will find the red link instead of making one up, I know I've seen it several times doing assessment for WP:WPBIO. Aboutmovies 21:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point - they're back. TerriersFan 22:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't want to revert you on such a small matter. Aboutmovies 22:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Date dabs

My reasoning was twofold:

• I had thought the MoS advises linking full dates only. I was aware of the preference thing, but thought it for full dates only. Is it month and day also? Ah well then, there goes my last half-hour.
• It looks stupid.

Also, we really should mention when they claimed to put them all to bed. Surely that's in one of the sources. Marskell 22:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a guideline, to be sure, but generally sound. And that is the one I was thinking of; apparently it is day + month. So revert away, but keep my initial shortening at the beginning of Investigation. (To be honest, I have no idea why we link dates at all—is anyone going to stop in the middle of this article and think "geez, I want to read about the random events that have occurred on May 11 over the centuries" :). In general, this article is overdabbed, but not terrible. Marskell 22:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor note: of course, I had assumed it was "reported to the police" but it does make more sense to say it in the first rather than the second sentence. Kudos on the time; 18:00 really is surprising. I was expecting 20:00. What kid of any age can you get to bed at six o'clock? (Oh, I know, we aren't here for our own conjectures, but you can't really help it.) Marskell 23:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the issues - no-one saw the girl alive between 18:00 and 22:00. TerriersFan 23:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Figueira

Thanks, weird! Rothorpe 16:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

Hi, Terriers, I was wondering why the link for the BBC News note number 9 is not available. Wasn't it just three days ago? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miguelmoura333 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed it -well spotted! TerriersFan 23:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

And one leads to another: nº 13 has 'lost toddlery'. Rothorpe 23:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. TerriersFan 23:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Image: St pats shield logo

Thanks for updating the fair use rationale on Image:st_pats_shield_logo.jpg for me. I appreciate your service, but....

You should let the uploader know that you have done so by adding a done comment after the bot message. I didn't check the history of the page first, I checked the places the bot message indicates. So it took me a while to get around to checking the history page for the image. I could see no reason the bot would be mad, because of course, you had added the link to the page.

Thanks for the help. No need to reply.

--Jvv62 14:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

More access to New York Times archives

Good news: The New York Times has opened its archives from 1851-1922 and from 1987 to the present. Announcement here. Cheers! Noroton 15:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Now, that is good news; thx for letting me know! TerriersFan 22:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello again, Terriers: it's been a while. I just wanted to bring to light the fact that the page Perceptions of religious imagery in natural phenomena seems to have been vandalised. I'm not sure what can be done, but under the "Jesus on a coach" section and the "Nike basketball shoes" section. I just briefly glanced through the article, and I'm pretty sure that there is more vandalism there. Any ideas or suggestions of what should be done? Does someone have to check through all of the history to find the vandals? What is the process? Thanks, Ben 01:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow...really sorry. The vandalism in Jesus on a coach has been fixed, and there was no vandalism in Nike Basketball Shoes: I thought the names "Air Melt, Air Grill, Air B-Que and Air Bakin'" were a joke...sorry about all of this, I hope I didn't waste any of your time. Ben 21:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well worth drawing this to my attention; it was me who fixed the vandalism! You have raised some great points. What happened was that the editor who made the next edits did not check the previous edit by an anon, which was vandalism. In order to keep on top of vandalism it behoves editors to check the previous edit, first, before making their edit to avoid the vandalism becoming established. Actually, I have a big problem with this article. Many of the claims are wholly unsourced and, because of the nature of the article, it is a fertile ground for vandals simply to make up content. I think I'll stick some fact tags on .... TerriersFan 15:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

At least something worthwhile came out of it...I guess I should've checked on who had reverted the vandalism...Christmas day 2888. Do you think it should be locked or semiprotected or whatever people do? Yeah, it does seem to merit some cleaning up and sourcing. Ben 15:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The level of vandalism doesn't justify semi-protection at the moment. The way forward is to add it to your watchlist and check edits, particularly those from anons, from time to time. I would remove any unsourced additions. BTW The 'Nike basketball shoes' section was added by an anon and I suspect that it is probably made up. TerriersFan 15:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That's kind of what I was thinking about protection...I have severely limited editing time now that school is back in session, though. I checked the Nikes out, and the flames on the back do resemble arabic...I think sources are necessary, though. Ben 18:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

Hi, I followed your suggestion of using the main page image of Madeleine and applied it over-the-top of the Moroccon photograph. However, checking the news just now it appears that experts don't believe it is Madeleine, so uploading it would not be worthwhile for now. Unless this development/part of the 'story' is important enough to be documented in the article?

Thank you for your suggestions, best wishes, Paul S UK 15:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Syllable-timed language

I wonder if you could get an expert on linguistics to have a look at this. As I have said on the talk page, I suspect it's a load of old. Cheers - Rothorpe 20:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added the ((Expert-subject|Linguistics)) template to each of the related articles. We shall see if it produces anything! Meanwhile you may wish to put a modified version of your talk page comment on each (there are four in all)? TerriersFan 22:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Investigating...Rothorpe 22:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow? deletion abuser

why in the world would you delete the table in Thomas R. Grover Middle School it was very helpful to visual learners and it is basically a quick summary of the preceding paragraph. dont abuse omg --12.33.122.73 19:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC) write back on discussion page for it

Because it was unnecessary and simply repeated information in the article. TerriersFan 23:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

VISUAL LEARNERS..... and plus why would somone want to go and read the whole thing when they could just take a quick peek at it. O yea.. you know text books right?? they make pictures to give a big picture of what the whole thing is focusing on and how it looks.--Umm killer 00:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Also, are u from grover???

Frankly, the whole section should be deleted. TerriersFan 00:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

but y...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umm killer (talk • contribs) 00:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 

Like my Topic?

I made a topic in Thomas R. Grover Middle School titled school clubs Like it? plzz reply back to my uder talk thingy--Umm killer 01:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"CRY" this guy named alshon or something made my topic 10 time smaller and less detailed...--Umm killer 01:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

omg answer back also, why in the world did u revert it all of thoseare importaint to the school like jagazine and first period paws your not even in the school so you shouldnt make up stuff--Umm killer 20:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:KasukabeHS.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

Looks like somebody got a little testy with you up there...

I'm not sure how I can acquire a block of this person, but he won't stop editing Spaulding High School. I know him from school, and his edits are spam and advertising, describing himself and a friend as "perennial stars" on the Spaulding stage or something to that extent. The IP is 71.80.45.169, not sure what I can do about it. The edits aren't malicious, per say, but they are supremely annoying, ego-inflating, inappropriate and unsourced. Any suggestions? Thx, Ben 22:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

His edit to Barre Opera House was vandalism and I've warned him. If he vandalises again then apply a level 4 warning from WP:VAN. A further occurrence would then lead to a block. If he continues to harass the School page then I will protect it. Please keep me informed. HTH. TerriersFan 02:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. I'll be watching both pages very carefully, and will report any vandalism if I find it. Ben 02:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. You have 118 sections on this talk page...you might want to archive some.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5