User talk:Necrothesp/Archive 7

The Leigh Technology Academy

Please reconsider your Opposition to the name change of The Leigh Technology Academy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Leigh_Technology_Academy This is what the school is called. It was once The Leigh City Technology College, but when the edit was made to the new name of The Leigh Technology Academy, obviously the The got lost in translation.

Bugei Juhappan

Hi Necrothesp. I'm not sure I follow your reasoning for deproddings like these. My understanding was, if the martial art Bugei Juhappan was decided to be non-notable, then elements of it would be considered non-notable as well—just as characters of a non-notable book would not have Wikipedia articles after the article on the book itself was deleted. What is your reasoning for considering these elements independently notable? I just wanted to ask because I am considering AfDing the articles now, but figured I should discuss the matter with you first—maybe I'm missing something here. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The point is that Bugei Juhappan was deleted because it in itself was not notable as a collection of martial arts. However, its elements may be notable, since they are all individual martial arts in their own right. I notice you did not prod Kenjutsu, Battōjutsu, Sōjutsu, Naginatajutsu, Kyūjutsu, Suijutsu, Bōjutsu, Jujutsu, Shurikenjutsu or Hōjutsu, all of which were also elements of Bugei Juhappan. Why not? Presumably because they are mostly fairly well-known and have substantial articles. Following your reasoning above, presumably all these arts should be deleted as non-notable? Just because an art is not so well-known or is only represented by a stub does not mean it is non-notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually I just came across the various stub items because I was checking the past contributions of an editor who was suspected of violating copyrights. I myself have no knowledge of the subject; the stubs I tagged were just the ones I noticed that had been created by that editor. It looks like the issue is whether those martial arts, like the ones you mention, are notable in their own right, independently of Bugei Juhappan. I guess I can snoop around Google a bit before deciding whether or not it's worthwhile to mass-AfD them. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Necrothesp. You have new messages at Talk:Post-Captain#Requested_move.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DeProd question

Hi, I notice you removed a PROD with this edit [1] without addressing the issue raised in the PROD of there not being reliable sources to establish notability of the claim. Your edit comment appears to have been based upon the single cited article, which doesn't appear to satisfy the reliable sources requirement. Could you clarify if you view that short single article as a sufficient reliable source? Or if you are relying on some other source? The article still would benefit from the addition of some secondary reliable sources to establish the notability claim, no? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

A quick Google search will show that he presented Eurovision. That satisfies the requirement as far as I'm concerned, as it's generally regarded as a prestigious event and is usually only presented by notable broadcasters. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't notability requirements require there to be a secondary source saying that rather than just "generally regarded" (which sounds like original research/synthesis)? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Since I'm not writing the article, I can't be accused of original research! I'm expressing an opinion. If you think he isn't notable then take the article to AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You deprodded it based upon your synthesis of original research apparently, and I am asking for clarification of your reasoning so I can learn from your expertise as a more experienced editor, so that I know when it is ok to utilize original research when making quality control decisions. Can you explain the logic? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR. It only applies to what is written in articles, not to notability debates. At the end of the day, I made a judgement to deprod, which any editor is entitled to do. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your reasoning. I've explained mine on the Afd which you suggested starting. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Mark Evans (general)

del cat - Why? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Because Category:Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters Regiment officers is already present. We don't add Category:British Army officers if one of its subcats is present. On its own it's only used as a holding category for officers whose regiment(s) or corps we don't yet know (or which don't yet have a category of their own). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

How remarkably logical! Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Cadet Staff Sergeant

I don't know about the other services, but within CAP it is made very clear that Cadet Staff Sergeant is a very distinct and separate grade from regular staff sergeants. Having a section in that article is fine, and that might be a good place to add the CAP grade insignia image, but it needed a mention separately. A Cadet Staff Sergeant is not a Staff Sergeant, is not a military non-commissioned officer, is not even in the military. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

But holds a clearly military rank rarely if never otherwise used outside military or paramilitary organisations (and originating in the British Army), which is rather a strange thing to do if an organisation likes to consider itself "non-military", is it not? -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

"A rose by any other name." Legally, Civil Air Patrol is a civilian group, its members are not in the military unless they also happen to be in one of the actual military services. The same is true of JROTC, by the way. While sponsored by the military, it isn't part of the military. No matter what CAP or JROTC wants to call it, their use of the grade of Cadet Staff Sergeant is not military. It is certainly related to the military, it is based upon the military grade, but they aren't military. Are there any Cadet Staff Sergeants that actually are part of the military? Remember, these aren't Staff Sergeants, they are Cadet Staff Sergeants. That's a level of Cadet, not a level of Staff Sergeant. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No, most cadets aren't actually legally in the military. But they wear military uniforms and use military ranks, often virtually indistinguishable from those worn and used by people who are in the military. The rank is not a completely different rank, but the same rank with "cadet" stuck in front. I don't know how the US cadet organisations use it, but a Cadet Staff Sergeant in the British cadet forces is not usually addressed (and rarely even referred to) as "Cadet Staff Sergeant", but as "Staff Sergeant" or "Staff", just as is his counterpart in the actual army. He wears a crown over three chevrons just like a "real" army Staff Sergeant. Within the cadet organisation he is a staff sergeant, just as a "real" staff sergeant is within his organisation. This is pure semantics. It's the same rank from the same source, whether it has "cadet" in front of it or not. You can't possibly argue that it's a completely different rank. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Deleting Category:Historical Films

I noticed you just removed this category from Thirteen Days (film) and The Missiles of October. Why don't you think they qualify as historical films? JustinTime55 (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I do. But they're in Category:Films set in 1962, which is a subcat of Category:Historical films. They don't need to be in both. Usual Wikipedia practice is to put articles only in the most specific category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

move of Arthur Edward Waite

I've initiated a move discussion on this since I question whether the initials are most commonly used. Mangoe (talk) 10:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Why the move

The British Army terms it as "http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/regiments/3471.aspx The Parachute Regiment" not just "Parachute Regiment".Cibwins2885 (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. However, it is not usual to use the article in front of a title in any encyclopaedia, and Wikipedia is no exception. The only exception is if it is almost always capitalised, which with regiments it most certainly isn't. Very few people would write "The" Parachute Regiment in running text. They would write "the" Parachute Regiment. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

"ery few people would write "The" Parachute Regiment in running text" your source?Cibwins2885 (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It's called common sense. Most people do not capitalise "The" when writing. It looks bizarre. And we use WP:COMMONNAME, not official name. Even the MOD themselves frequently don't capitalise it, as a Google search will prove. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Siegfried Marseille

Hey there Necrothesp, Thanks for recommending my article Siegfried Marseille to be kept , i really appreciate it as its my first article ive created :) Goldblooded (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. There's absolutely no reason to delete an article on a general officer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

2nd Indian Cavalry Division

The 2nd Indian Cavalry Division contained a number of British Army cavalry units from formation. Does this make it an Army of Indian division rather than a (British) Indian division? GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Most "Indian" formations did. However, the "Indian" prefix means it was part of the Indian Army. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

TT-talkback

Hello, Necrothesp. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deputy Assistant Commissioner.
Message added 14:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 14:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Former pupils of Foo

FYI. This CfD and this one] have re-opened the topic. Ephebi (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yet again

I think you may wish to contribute here. Moonraker (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hitler (1962 film)

Hello, Necrothesp …

You removed my {{Prod}} from this article with the comment, "I'm inclined to believe that a film that has received a Golden Globe nomination should be considered notable" … unfortunately, that is not one of the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (films) … also, the article is totally lacking multiple WP:RS, since an IMDb link is insufficient, no matter how many times it is linked.

Sadly, an article can only be PROD'd once, and I currently lack the energy to initiate a WP:AfD. <Sigh!> Happy Editing! — 70.21.24.28 (talk · contribs)_{01:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)}

Thanks for beating me to the reply as to this film, Necrothesp. The fact is there are not many films as to the life of Hitler even though there are hundreds if not thousands of books on this well known infamous figure of the past century. BTW, there are other films that make up Wikipedia articles or stubs that rely on IMDb links, without question. I agree with your reasoning stated above and action taken. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The nominator, like an increasing number of editors, has obviously not read WP:IAR or WP:BURO! -- Necrothesp (talk) 04:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Female GM

Hey, I saw you commented on the request to move that I did so I'm just dropping you a line. There is an ongoing discussion over whether the term FGC should be retained now that the title has been changed to FGM. (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Female_genital_mutilation#Terminology). More input is required to determine whether the consensus on the usage of FGM in the title extends to the article, thanks. Vietminh (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

People from ...

Hi. Re: F. C. Ricardo. Can you please point me to the relevant policy that states that people have to have been born or grown up in a place to go in its 'People from...' category. I remember the discussions on changing these over from 'Natives of ...' and as I remember one of the main reasons for this was so that they could include residents as well as natives. This is backed up by Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#By_place and there are thousands upon thousands of articles which use these categories in this way. Verica Atrebatum (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Although it does not apply to non-British categories, the British categories have almost exclusively been used for people born or brought up in a place and not for people who just lived there. There is no policy or guideline to that effect, but it is something that has become generally accepted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That's not very satisfactory. You say it's 'generally accepted' but how do I know this is true. I haven't generally accepted this. How do you know that everyone else has? Without guidelines to the contrary, there is nothing wrong with the category I placed on this article. From a local studies point of view, knowing which people were resident in a particular place is very useful, as it says at Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#By_place. Verica Atrebatum (talk) 12:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, you could WP:AGF! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Alumni of St. Patrick's Grammar School, Armagh

Category:Alumni of St. Patrick's Grammar School, Armagh, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Necrothesp. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
Message added 19:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Necrothesp. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
Message added 21:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Necrothesp. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
Message added 18:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of William Nicoll

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on William Nicoll requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 02:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For your even-handed decisions as to "speedy deletion" tagged articles; and efforts to make Wikipedia better organised, I award you this barnstar. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Hi there, can you please have another look at Talk:John Munro (New Zealand politician) and see whether you can shed some further light? Schwede66 19:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Silver Wings

Classy sarcasm aside, I am new to Wikipedia. Personal feelings are irrelevant, my CO ordered me to change the wiki title. (My organization directly oversees the Silver Wings). Looking back I see that you did post a comment against it. Is that considered unanimous disagreement? I also see that you are an administrator - where can I find Wikipedia policy regarding article naming conventions? I didn't see your comment, certainly meant no offense, wasn't trying to hijack the article or violate Wikipedia policy. As for the title, it is the correct name of the unit (not of the most pompous one). Thanks. Blueferocious (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Your CO ordered you to? Good grief, is Wikipedia really that important? But I'm afraid your CO has no control over Wikipedia. Its editors do. And we use common name for article titles, which is not necessarily the same as official name. Think what would most people call this parachute team: the United States Army Maneuver Center of Excellence Command Exhibition Parachute Team or the Silver Wings? I suspect the answer is self-evident. Well, that's the name we use.

I know you weren't doing anything maliciously, which is why I pointed out that moving an article like this is against Wikipedia policy for future reference. It was moved per the common name policy and not because of my comment (note that I was not the one who moved it). As for being pompous, many formal military titles are indeed unnecessarily pompous and long-winded, which is why shortened versions are commonly used instead (after all, if the team wasn't actually known as the Silver Wings instead of its full title we wouldn't even be having this discussion). I speak as a former member of the British Army and a military historian who certainly has no axe to grind against the military. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Clerk of Tynwald

Your response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clerk of Tynwald was completely uncalled for. If your read my comments, you'll see that I specifically said that Americans don't see "clerk" as an important position. And in the US, secretaries are never junior to clerks.

I wasn't advocating bias for one country or another, I was pointing out a difference in how terms are used and asking editors to clarify the language. The point of the talk page post was to explain why the position seemed unimportant to me and provide guidance to rescuers on how to avoid other editor's thinking the same thing. And I would be shocked if the government of the Isle of Man really only has 30 employees. The schools only probably have 100 employees.

Instead of snarking at me, maybe you should improve the article so dumb Americans like me get it. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

And my point was that if you'd bothered to actually read the article and follow the links you would have found out all you needed to know. In any case, what you really seem to be saying is that the article should be improved, not deleted, so I'm not sure why you nominated it for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: User talk: Fastily

It is in my opinion that you were a bit past WP:Civil, and WP:NPA on that one. "You are clearly too arrogant" is rather surprising to see from an Admin. No disrespect intended.--SKATER ^{Is Back} 21:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

"Are you sure you know what you're doing? If you need help, the new admin school is this way." "Want my help? Ask again, politely. Otherwise, get off my talk page." Where was the civility there then? As an administrator himself, Fastily's actions in deleting perfectly good articles were indeed unacceptable. In reply to my suggestion that this needed explanation, he responded with sarcasm, a suggestion that a more experienced administrator did not know what he was doing, and another that his talkpage should only be used for respectfully asking for his help (thus suggesting that we lowly mortals need to be instructed in some way by him). His attitude shows pure arrogance, lack of respect for other editors, and a suggestion that his actions need no explanation. There is no excuse for deleting perfectly good articles and claiming justification under speedy deletion policies. Assuming good faith, he appears to be careless in the use of his admin powers and then arrogant and patronising in his responses to criticism. His talkpage suggests that I am far from being the only editor who thinks so and far from being the only editor on the receiving end of his attitude problem. I am usually reasonable, but one thing that makes me see red is being patronised. I have been here a long time and contributed a lot to the project, and high-handed attitudes like his get my goat. I make no apology for that, although I accept that I should maybe have not responded to his attack on me with such obvious irritation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Necrothesp/Archive 7! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Araby (Warhammer)

Hy there, you seem to have objected to the deletion of the article Araby (Warhammer). However I'm puzzled by your reasons: "deprod; prod all or none; deleting piecemeal is not helpful". So if I understood you correctly in your opinion I should make a collective deletion request of several articles (prod all)? ALL Warhammer Fantasy articles that are sorely lacking?

IMHO such a step would be quite difficult (after all, every article is an individual case). Some lack any sources whatsoever, while other articles are about some minor subject of the setting (i.e.: fail Notability). I'm not even sure how I should proceed. Could you offer me some advice? Thanks. Flamarande (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason for my deproid was that you have prodded a single article on a single country in Warhammer, whereas articles exist on every country in Warhammer. For consistency's sake it seems to me that we should either have articles on every country or no countries. Which of those options should be the case is immaterial to me, but it should be one or the other. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Hello, I noticed you commented on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Missoula, Montana. There is a related discussion on some of the buildings from that list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Interstate Center (Missoula). Any insights and opinions you can offer would be appreciated. Thank you --JonRidinger (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Sir Andrew Beattie

Hello, I am interested in why you are interested in the entry for Sir Andrew Beattie. I updated the article in August as part of family history research and I am curious as to your connection to Sir Andrew. He is my paternal great-great-grandfather. Thanks for your interest in the article.

Hello. I created the article as part of a series on people who had received high honours (such as knighthoods) in the honours lists. I knew nothing about him before researching him for the article and was just going through the 1920 New Year Honours list and creating articles for those who didn't have them before. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: List of incidents of civil unrest in the United States

deprod; most of the individual events are bluelinked and sourced in their articles

Thank you for taking the time to look at this article. Perhaps you can share your wisdom on this matter, and I can gain some understanding from your thought process. Here is mine:

1. This list was originally created, unsourced, by Ecomcon (talk · contribs) in late 2005. Now inactive, the user was formerly active from 2005-2009 and made a total of 287 edits.
2. The creation of this initial list indicates that Ecomcon was trying to push a selective POV, namely, the POV that African Americans, who were trying to gain civil rights in the U.S. during the 20th century, were responsible for most violent civil unrest in that century.[2] As a result, this article was not created in good faith to begin with.
3. According to Ecomcon's edit history, this unsourced, POV list represents their primary contribution to Wikipedia from 2005-2009, with a total of 29 edits to the list.[3] Based on the entirety of their edit history, the creation of this list is a red flag.
4. Since the time this unsourced, POV list was originally created in 2005, no single editor has ever added a source supporting its existence.
5. At present, the list contains ~25 entries dated between 1676-1774. However, the United States didn't declare itself a country until 1776.
6. The list currently contains more than 300 entries, of which ~108 are red links or unlinked.
7. Most of the blue links are arready appropriately categorized under Category:Rebellions in the United States and Category:Riots and civil disorder in the United States. I don't see any justification to combine these two categories into a list.
8. The list is a POV magnet and a welcome invitation for editors to add misleading and erroneous entries. For example, one joker refers to the Kent State shootings/massacre as the "Kent State Riots". Recently, another editor added the "Occupy UC Davis" pepper spraying incident, even though there was, according to every press report on this incident, no civil unrest. One can only imagine how many other unsourced and misleading entries are still in this POV list.
9. Per our guidelines on notability for stand-alone lists, "a list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." There is no indication that this grouping is accurate in its current form since there are no sources that discuss this user-defined, user-created set of articles.

That's it for now. Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Schools

FYI. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Inchture Village railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tramway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited William Taylor (police officer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hackney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

London Gazette

Hi, re this and similar edits: please note that the |notarchive= parameter is no longer used by {{London Gazette}} (it was removed in January 2009), and in fact using it will put the page into hidden Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters. I see that quite a lot of your User: subpages are also in that category. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Treasure Island (2012 TV miniseries), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ben Gunn and Blind Pew (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Challenging 'All-American Boys Chorus' proposed deletion

The rule for challeging a proposed deletion is: "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason" You didn't improve the article nor mention mention any reason. You should only tell your disagreement on the article's Talk page. Wikipedia has rules. Let's abide by them. 87.67.128.56 (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, reply not necessary anymore. I made further reading on the matter. USSR wins. 87.67.128.56 (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm specifically inviting you to the discussion at Talk:All-American Boys Chorus, where I spell out my concerns about the article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Henry Blogg

Hi, Sources in article say he received the GC so have reverted your edit. Regards --palmiped |  Talk  16:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

have had a quick search on the net I see he received the Empire Gallantry Medal in 1924 but all the refs say he received the George Cross would this be because he exchanged his EMG for a GC post 1940? --palmiped |  Talk  17:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Blogg was awarded the Medal of the Order of the British Empire for Gallantry on 30 June 1924, see "No. 32953". The London Gazette. 4 July 1924. (where it is described as "Medal of the Civil Division of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire For Gallantry"). The EGM would later have been converted to a George Cross under the terms of the institution of the GC, see "No. 35060". The London Gazette. 31 January 1941. "Eleventhly: It is ordained that from the date of this Our Warrant, the grant of the Medal of the Order of the British Empire, for Gallantry, ... shall cease, and a redolent of that Medal, living at the date of this Our Warrant, shall return it to the Central Chancery of the Orders of Knighthood and become instead a holder of the George Cross". --Redrose64 (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Modern Records Centre, University of Warwick, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages National Union of Students, General Federation of Trade Unions and National Federation of the Blind (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for keeping the "List of last occurences" in your archive , Personally i think it was a shame it was deleted (as do a fair amount of others) but thanks for preserving it, its really good for reference material :) User:Goldblooded ^{(Talk/Discuss)(Complain)} 11:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I think so too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh and also, would you mind if i edited it from time to time and perhaps tidied it up a bit for our own personal use? User:Goldblooded ^{(Talk/Discuss)(Complain)} 22:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Institute of Aviation, Warsaw

Hello, just in case it's no longer on your watch list, may I point out that by restoring that article, you've also restored the copyvio, which is once again readily accessible through the article history. Why, anyway? The remains of the article is now nothing more than a definition with attached link farm. Useless. It could have been re-started easily enough by anyone with somthing useful to tell about the Institute. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously you're not familiar with WP:Stub and unaware that Wikipedia considers stubs to be perfectly acceptable articles. As to restoring a copyvio, surely you're not suggesting that any copyvio inserted into an article should result in the complete deletion of that article in case the copyvio is accessed through the edit history? Because that really would be ludicrous! -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Institute of Aviation, Warsaw#Deletion. --Stfg (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

stable belt

I dont understand your RV on this page. The only thing i see which might be the "messed up graphics" you refer to are the belt images overlapping the bottom of the brazil section and top of denmark, but that was the case before, and has nothing to do with my edit Stonewaters (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This edit of yours removed a |} which closes a table, and altered style="cellpadding=2 to style="cellpade="cellpadding=2 which screwed the formatting of the next table. The removal of the marker to close the table meant that the table was considered to extend to the bottom of the article, breaking the format of everything after the point where it should have been closed. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Then there was this edit which by removing both a |} and a {| joined together two tables which should not have been joined, but the join was not "clean" for a variety of reasons, including the fact that neither |"#09007A"|  nor |bgcolor="#090dding=2 cellspacing="0" width="100%" are valid Wiki markup. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Redrose64. Couldn't have put it better myself. I'm at a loss to understand why you (Stonewaters) even fiddled with the tables, considering your other edits (which were valid) had nothing to do with them. But given that you did and given the complex nature of the tables, it was easier to revert the whole lot than go through trying to undo the damage. Well done to Redrose64 for having the patience to do so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Max Page

You may be interested in this discussion.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

CfD process

As 'Old Fooian' is being contested again at Categories for Discussion I have made a suggestion at the CfD talk page which you might be interested in. Ephebi (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you please see my comment here? Moonraker (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Art Malik, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Upstairs Downstairs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a Reminder-- Deletions hurt writers' feelings

Hi Necrthesp. A while ago, you !voted for delete on an article I had tried to help write on a what I sincerely believed was a good-faith topic that would non-controversially improve Wikipedia. You felt my time did not improve Wikipedia, so I wanted to tell you a little bit about how that feels when you're on the other side of a delete.

You see, my time is surprisingly valuable to me. I have family duties, I have work duties, I balance them all.

I gave Wikipedia a gift of my time. I gave it a little piece of my life.

If Wikipeda keep my gift and improves it, I will be vastly more inclined to donate even more of my time in the future. But if you take my hand-made gift and visibly throw it in the trash, I will have a different reaction.

I probably won't feel very welcome here. I may feel "Wikipedia" doesn't like me or want me. I may not feel very open to giving Wikipedia any of my own time. After all why waste more time on things that will just get deleted??

(Forget me personally-- I'm just one person, not an important one, and I'll probably keep contributing anyway.)

You need to be aware-- delete !votes have a very real, lasting emotional consequence that cripples editor morale. Make sure you realize that. Make sure you remember that "Delete !votes" carry a cost to our mission.

I do understand-- we must have deletions-- bad-faith contributions, illegal contributions, etc. But when good-faith people are trying to do good-faith things, deletion is a very insensitive tool.

Please try to remember this in the future. You're not just deciding on whether to keep a single article-- you're deciding on whether to keep authors. --HectorMoffet (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Now, did I actually say your time didn't improve Wikipedia? I am not a deletionist. I tend more towards the inclusionist. But I genuinely did not think the subject of your article was notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. There are many, many thousands, if not millions, of local councillors in the world. Most of them are not notable. We must have a minimum standard of inclusion or the project will degenerate into masses of rubbish on non-notable topics dear to the heart of individual editors. I'm not saying your article falls into that category. It was clearly written in good faith about someone you genuinely considered to be notable. But the notability standards still apply. Others agree that the subject is notable, and the article may well be kept. That's how Wikipedia works. Notability is not determined by one editor, or by one group of editors, but by consensus of the whole community.

Please realise that you're not alone. I too come here primarily to write articles. I have created 738 articles and worked on many more. Of the articles I have created, a number have been nominated for deletion. Only one has actually been deleted after discussion. Should it have been? Like you, I believe not. It's irritating, but you have to forget about it and bounce back. Don't let one setback deter you from contributing to Wikipedia. We've all been there and we have to accept that sometimes decisions are made or opinions expressed that we don't agree with. Regards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

New cfds regarding "Old Fooians"

Two new cfds propose the renaming of some twenty categories. Most of those who took part in last year's cfd "Former pupils by school in the United Kingdom" seem unaware of them, so I am notifying all those who took part in that discussion, to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Please consider contributing here and here. Moonraker (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

RE: Moving Croix de Guerre (Belgium)

I disagree with your page move of this article. Belgium is a country with three official languages French, German, and Dutch. Using only the French name does not reflect a neutral point of view. We also try to use English on the English Wikipedia, but I can see how many would see this one like the Pour le merite. If you are going to move it to the French name you had best use proper French grammar. Croix de Guerre imposes English grammar rules on the title, in French it would be Croix de guerre. Take a look here if you will not take my word: fr:Croix de guerre 1914-1918 (Belgique). EricSerge (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Our policy is to use the common name in English-language sources. This is unequivocally Croix de Guerre. I would agree with you that the correct name uses "guerre" in the lower case. I did consider that, but as the capitalised version was used in the article I assumed it may have been an exception. Feel free to change it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have now done so. As to "Use English", note that we do not translate unnecessarily, producing something rarely if ever found in English-language sources. WP:USEENGLISH is sadly all too often used as a justification to produce titles which simply are never found outside Wikipedia. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to invent titles, whether for NPOV reasons or obsessive "we must use English no matter what" reasons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Because I posted below I saw this. Is that your basic view on words and names with diacritics also? That we use sources in English first and foremost to spell a fictitious name like "Fred Fredly" and if the press and major news organizations or English books don't have anything on Fred, that's when we look to his Norwegian sources and if they spell it "Frëd Fřëdły" then that's what we'll use until/unless English sources start spelling his name using the English alphabet? Sounds reasonable if so. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's basically the way it works. Although we have to be careful of English language sources, as sometimes they don't use diacritics through simple laziness, especially on the internet. I would always favour the use of diacritics unless it's absolutely clear that the reliable English language sources overwhelmingly don't use them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

PRODing articles

I noticed you de-proded a whole batch of articles which I had attached the tag and I'm a bit confused since administrators seem to look at it differently at the tennis project which I frequent. First if any of these articles had been made today the "new page patrollers" would have deleted them right out of the chute telling the creator he needs sources. If it's missed, when we find it we put it up for proposed deletion and if for any reason (hopefully a good) someone disagrees they remove the tag and we'll then nominate it for deletion. Of course that's more headaches for the backlogged administrators and their helpers but that's the way we've mostly done it. Here there were pages with no sources and the same tags complaining about it for 2-4 years... some living biographies. I don't think it was unreasonable to assume no one cares about this series of articles and if perchance they do they can exercise their right to simply remove the tag. I don't know whether you were using your right as a contributor or using your power as an administrator in reverting them with a "deprod; if you want sources to be improved you should not prod - that's for uncontroversial deletion" because it looked pretty straight forward to label them as such to me. I guess I need a much better explanation so I don't run into this again the next time I'm directed by bots and editors to look at some poor articles especially since it seems to work differently in other sections of this wikipedia. My other alternative seems to nominate them for deletion because of their long long neglect but that seems like it would have been the next step to take. Remember these articles aren't just missing a reference or two or been tagged for 3 months. They mostly have no references and been tagged for three years. The articles in this series that had some of the need refs but had been tagged for an extended time I simply deleted the unref'd text and left the rest. But if I had done this to non-ref'd articles the page would be completely blank. I thought proding would be the better option. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I would never, ever delete an article on a feasible topic because it was unsourced. I know things have changed since my early days on Wikipedia when we almost never cited sources, but I still think this is overkill and against the spirit of the project. Unsourced material in an article which is controversial should certainly be removed, especially if referring to a living person, but that's all. Prods should only really be used for material whose deletion is uncontroversial. That was not the case for most of the articles you prodded, which were mostly on perfectly acceptable and useful topics. This was particularly the case for the two politicians - members of national or sub-national parliaments (which both these men were) are generally regarded as being worthy of articles in all cases. Essentially, if articles have no references but appear to be on viable topics then they should be improved, not deleted. If they are borderline notable then they should be AfDed. But prodding should not be used for any article that appears to have a possibility of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. When you recently edited The Duellists, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Captain and 100 Days (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Nazir Ahmad (murderer)

Hi. I created Nazir Ahmad (murderer) back in 2005 after the case was a decent sized news story. It was well before naming conventions had been standardized and I was a relatively new editor although after someone moved the page you moved it back to (murderer). Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazir Ahmad (murderer) I see the AfD was open for about 14 hours. Clearly the article as it stood (with all references removed) violated BLP. I do think we should take the article back to a sourced version and have a full AfD on noteworthiness of Nazir as opposed to quick deletion without making sure previous versions of the article weren't generally acceptable. It might get deleted. I'd have to review current standards to see if it should. I think it would be best to put the article back to the "10:01, 7 April 2006" revision and the list for deletion. The article should be renamed and we should delete all of the unsourced material after that. gren グレン 18:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Hi. When you recently edited Escape from Sobibor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ullrich Haupt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)