User talk:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome

Hello, Alf.laylah.wa.laylah! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! SudoGhost™ 00:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Reflist

Per your edit summary note on Talk:Staunton, Virginia: The {{reflist}} tag is designed to work on articles, and thus will list all the references on a page regardless of its location on a page. Thus while one can place the reflist tag on a talk page, it will still dump all of the references for the entire page due to its being designed for use on articles. You can't designate it by section. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info. Did I do those two sections in an appropriate manner, or should I have done something else with my concerns? Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems to work well enough. As long as it gets the point across, it's fine. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Henry Santos

Hello Alf.laylah.wa.laylah, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Henry Santos, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. — Joseph Fox 01:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

U.S. state bats, reptiles etc

The naming of these lists was first discussed on the FL nomination of U.S state dogs where is was decided to remove the "List of" from the name. This was further discussed and again agreed for the FL of U.S state reptiles and a major contributor of that list started U.S state bats hence it was named in agreement with the featured list discussion for U.S state animals. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 10:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, sorry to make work for you. I was involved in the afd for the bats, and was so thrilled that it survived, i didn't think to check the talk pages. won't do it again. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Cool and great you saved the article by finding appropriate references. The U.S. state bat naming was not talked about specifically on the talk page, so I understand why you would of missed it - especially as it was raise in AFD which I only just read. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

walking

to the future: this conversation concerns this edit and the two preceding it

thanks for catching that--I was looking at the wrong spreadsheet. I'll go back and fix the other cities right now. Cyrusc (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

no problem. after i took it out, i realized that i should have just fixed it myself, but it didn't occur to me until after you'd already done it. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Wings in the Dark

Thanks for taking the time to contribute to that article! It was immediately hit by a vandal and I'm glad you responded to my call for help. I couldn't believe anyone would want to delete a Cary Grant movie, not to mention Myrna Loy. Upsmiler (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Ernest Emerson

I saw your note on AFD. Please let me know what I can do to improve the article. I removed the log cabin sentence. I value your input. Thanks--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Steven Michael Woods, Jr.

I haven't added any poorly cited references to the already very slanted article regarding Steven Michael Woods, Jr. You will allow an article from the Austin Chronicle but not the Fort Worth Star Telegram which shows the other side of the story? Please explain how this is any poorer a reference than those that have been allowed, including his "family run" anti-death penalty website. Peacer8181 (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

the problem was that you added the names of the victims and left them cited to the nyt article, which does not in fact mention them. i have no problem with the fort worth star telegram. just add it as a reference for the victims' names if it in fact mentions them. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

what you have now is completely fine with me. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

When I attempted to add the information contained within the Attorney General of Texas website related to the investigation, it was previously deleted (view revision history). Would this information be objectionable as it written/cited? Thanks for any assistance. Also, I removed the reference to the subject being tried under the law of parties, as it was never cited, and which he was not. I have personal knowledge of these events and of this subject. I will try to find a citation and add the correct information.Peacer8181 (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the article you mentioned makes no reference to the "Law of Parties" as you cited. It was removed. Maybe you can find the actual court documents for reference. Peacer8181

Bayard Rustin

No problem. Thanks for adding to the article. Rustin is largely forgotten today, which is truly a shame. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Camp.robert.smalls.inspection.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Camp.robert.smalls.inspection.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Royal Chicano Air Force

Hi Alf.layla.wa.laylah, I enjoyed reading Royal Chicano Air Force, and was wondering if it would be possible to get some images. Where I am it would be easy as we have a freedom of Panorama on the principle that a cat may look at a King. I'm pretty sure that sort of freedom doesn't apply in the US, so we are dependent either on the copyright that the artist has released their work under, or on claiming fair use - a US legal device that I don't claim to fully understand. file:Chicano Park Mural.JPG might well be a RCAF image, though possibly too high definition for a Fair use claim. If these were the work of individual artists one could ask them if they had a version they were prepared to release under an open license, but I suspect that these murals may be collaborative works which many people can claim copyrights to parts of. What do you think? ϢereSpielChequers 07:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

thanks for taking an interest! i'm no copyright lawyer, but that image is listed as being pd, and it's placed on a number of pages, so no one's found a problem with it. if there ends up being a problem, i suppose someone will issue a takedown to wikimedia and they'll deal with it. meanwhile, i think it'd go quite well on the page, but i'm not sure if this is an rcaf mural or not, and i'm not sure how to find out. perhaps the solution is to use a caption that explains that it's not known? like e.g. "mural in chicano park, barrio logan, san diego. possibly the work of rcaf members." or something along those lines? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well I spotted it on Salvador Torres but having taken a second look there it looks like something similar to what you suggest has been done on that article. If you don't mind I'm going to ask the opinion of someone I know who may have contacts who can find out who painted that mural. ϢereSpielChequers 18:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

sounds excellent! — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

No freedom of panorama in the US. For fair use you'd normally have to discuss the specific work in the text a bit. Johnbod (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks John. ϢereSpielChequers 19:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Mozart: Violin Sonatas K. 301, 304, 376 & 526

Thank you for helping clean up my fumbling attempt at this deletion nom - I appreciate it. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

hey, no problem, although all i did was sort it, which isn't necessarily nominator's responsibility. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Mickey's Choo-Choo Talk

Thank you and also could you also hope that Mickey's Choo-Choo dosen't get deleted. If you want to contact me, it's Mickey798 —Preceding undated comment added 01:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for Bodrifty

Hi Alf.laylah.wa.laylah, thanks for the great work saving Bodrifty, that was fast! Dare I ask a favour? I made a start on a new article but stalled, could you have a look at it if you have the time? User:Davecrosby uk/John Harper (computer engineer) Thanks. - Dave Crosby (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

thank you, too. bodrifty gave me a nice break from the utter crap i should have been devoting my time to. i will be happy to look at your article. cryptography is something i'm quite interested in. it may not be for a few hours, though. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks. There's no rush, I haven't touched it in ages. I visited Bletchley Park last month, it was very cool. - Dave Crosby (talk) 04:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Expanded it further, thanks for your initial expansion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Opus Fund

Thanks for the tip — I'm unfamiliar with the AFD process (and wanted to be sure I wasn't inserting the 7-days-to-deletion template), so I missed one of the three pages in need of editing. The proper template is now in place, and thank you for categorizing the discussion.--Martin Berka (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murzyn

Thanks for your input. Your last comment was particularly great and made me laugh :))) Malick78 (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Largest and smallest won amounts (Deal or No Deal UK)

It's fixed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Aperiodic tilings and undecidability

You recently revised Robert Berger (mathematician), stating: existence of aperiodic tiling implies undecidability, rather than converse. First, I don't see how the existence of an aperiodic tiling implies undecidability (except that both are true and true implies true, but I'm sure that's not what you mean). Secondly, undecidability does in fact imply the existence of an aperiodically tiling set.

Theorem (Moore and Wang). If no truly aperiodically tiling set exists, tiling is a decidable property.
Proof. The universe of finite tile sets can be partioned into three classes:

1. NT: the non-tilers: tile sets that do not admit a tiling;
2. PT: the periodic tilers: tile sets that admit a periodic tiling;
3. AT: the truly aperiodic tilers: tile sets that admit an aperiodic tiling, but no periodic tiling.

Clearly, both NT and PT are recursively enumerable, so if AT is empty, they are complementary, and the result follows. ◻

Corollary. If tiling is undecidable, there exists a truly aperiodically tiling set.

Thirdly, that is also what the sources say, starting with Berger's 1966 paper (p. 3). Cheers,  --Lambiam 12:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

ah, good point, i was thinking that the wp article was saying that the undecidability yielded the construction, which clearly can't be true, but of course it can imply the existence. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

mahan mitra

Sir, I need your help!! The page of 'Mahan Mitra' has been deleted. He got Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Award this year for his outstanding work in 'Rubber Sheet Geometry'. He is a great teacher. Please do something. Restore the page. 59.93.247.38 (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

there's not much i can do. maybe try rewriting article paying attention to reasons that closing admin gave for deletion on your user page and then ask for someone's help regarding moving it back into article space?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

thanks

		The Original Barnstar
		Specifically for your comments here, which demonstrate a level of research above and beyond the call of duty, but also for persistent source-finding skills that far surpass the basic Google-trawling most of us do. Yunshui (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks! it's why wp is better than crossword puzzles.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Maslamah Ibn Ahmad al-Majriti

That Spanish document you found is pretty interesting. Sa'id barely mentions Maslamah Ibn Ahmad al-Majriti. He just reports that's he has heard from one of his students that Maslma taught them mathematics and geometry from the writings of a certain "Ibn Abi Issa" and held him in high respect. That's about all of what Sa'id says of Maslmah. I think doubting Maslamah's authorship of "Ghayat al-Hakim" based on the sole fact that Ibn Sai'd doesn't go into details about him might be a little exaggerated; Ibn Khaldun mentions him as the author of those books in his "Muqadima". Also acc to "Ghayat al-Hakim" it was written between 954-959 C.E. the dates are mentioned on the first page. Additionally "Rutbat al-Hakim" was written before "Ghayat al-Hakim". His wiki article might need some corrections. Also, there might be some information regarding this in Ibn Hazm's "Tawq al-Hamama" acc to this source [1]. Tachfin (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

isn't it fascinating (spanish document)? i left my copy of sa'id in my office, but i think that there's also a much longer section about maslamah in there than the one you mention, and in a whole different place, where sa'id does give a list of maslamah's works. also, it wasn't i that doubted the attribution of those two books to maslamah on the basis of sa'id's not mentioning him, but the opinion of the two editors/translators of the english edition of sa'id that i consulted, and to which i sourced the statement in the article. perhaps it would be better to moderate the statement there to make it clear that it's an opinion and what it's based on? thanks for that other source. i'll look into it with great interest.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to this document you linked to in the deletion discussion of Fatima de Madrid. I know that there is some doubt expressed by some modern day scholars about the authorship of the two books, I just don't know on what basis other than Ibn Sa'id. Here you have a 19th century manuscript of "Ghayat al-Hakim". The author is mentioned under the name "al-Hakim al-Majriti al-Qurtubi" Tachfin (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

there may be more to it than just the "no mention in sa'id" argument. i really wish i hadn't left the book in the office, because i won't be able to get it until friday. but these old time attributions tend to last a long time after scholars start to think they look suspicious, and conversely tend to look suspicious even when they're not. sarton doesn't mention any doubt about the attribution to majriti, so the doubts are probably mid to late 20th century in origin.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually I've looked "Maslamah" in the index of "Tabaqt al-Umam" and there was only one occurence, now I realize that there are more occurrences if I look under "Abu al-Qasim Maslamah" and thus more material on him. I think the doubt regarding the authorship of "Ghayat al-Hakim" has something to do with the lifespan of the author. Since we're sure that the two books were written in 954-959 and that Maslmah died in 1008, although it's not impossible that he lived more than 80 years and composed those works in his early 30s. + the fact that Ibn Sa'id didn't mention the books nor that Maslmah worked in the field of chemistry. Tachfin (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Fatima

Seriously, write it up somewhere! The worst that can happen is your article gets rejected. Whatever field you're in, wherever you are in your academic career, a publication is always better than no publication. Good luck--I'd love to read an article (or even a note) somewhere about some puzzling character who may have been important but who may also have been confused with someone else--a Moorish female astronomer, those are hard to come by! There are plenty of collections that could include this topic--I just reviewed a book from a Palgrave MacMillan series which contains many collections that could have been a fit. Or make it a conference presentation for a conference on astronomy, on Spanish history, on women's history, etc. Good luck, and if you need a pair of eyes or a copy editor feel free to email me. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks again for your encouragement. i've actually been planning to write a few things about wikipedia itself and its relationship to the values espoused by the same institutions of liberal education whose faculty mindlessly disparage its value, and i think this afd may be a perfect case study in a number of ways. i'll keep you up to date if i end up writing anything, definitely. i don't actually know enough about the subject to write academically on fatima per se, since i don't even read arabic.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Additions/deletions

About those additions. You say "...you put them in lists, without worrying about alphabetical order..." True - but some of those list (e.g. Islamic fundamentalism and Punjab insurgency) are without any discernible order. Being a newcomer, I could only assume, that the order was chronological: first addition first, last - last.

I accept, that the article on Islamic fundamentalism and political violence may not be a good fit to "Islam in Europe." But it does fit the others (Islamofascism, Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic terrorism). The same for the one I added to the Punjab insurgency. --Peterakiss (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

alphabetical order isn't the main issue. the main issue is that you're almost randomly inserting things you wrote yourself without bothering to integrate information from them into the articles. it seems to me to be self promotion, and i really wish you wouldn't do it. it's not like your articles were published in any kind of scholarly venue, so it seems to me that the chance that they're relevant as further reading is quite low.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason why you should be familiar with CEPOL e-Library - it caters to a fairly small scientific community. It is certainly not "scholarly" in the sense of "academic ivory tower," but in the area of police science it is as scientific as you can get. There is nothing random about my insertions (by the way, have you bothered to glance at them?). As I said earlier, they are good fits to the articles in question, since they shed further light on the subjects. On the other hand, they do not fit either the self-promotion or conflict of interest parameters (e.g. they point to the papers in the collection in which they were published, not to my own web page, etc).

To you it "seems" self promotion, and "seems" that the papers have no relevance. To me it "seems" that you simply object to the contents of the papers I linked, and grabbed onto a convenient excuse to get rid of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterakiss (talk • contribs) 17:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

actually, i didn't even look at the content of the papers, but just at your username, the name of the author of the papers, especially the publisher of the papers, and the fact that you took no time to integrate the content of the papers into the content of the articles, and drew my conclusion from that. why not try to actually use the papers to improve the articles, or at least make some case that reading those papers will lead to a deeper understanding of the subject of the articles? there's no reason on the face of it to think that those articles are useful further reading material for those subjects.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Mary_Baldwin_College#additions_to_history_section and student project

A good place to ask would be WP:SUP and WP:AMBASSADOR and outreach:Global Education Program. What course is this student a part of? Is the instructor of the course aware of those pages? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep the faith

I know you've posted a bunch of question on the Los Angeles page. I've been tardy in replying, and probably won't be able to get to them until next week. But your hard work and sensible choices aren't going unnoticed. You're an asset to the project.   Will Beback  talk  08:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks, and you too, definitely. i've been meaning to let you know that i haven't given up on it, i just needed a break from citations for a bit. i'm actually reading a geology book on socal, and ought to be able to upgrade that section soon enough.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. Thanks for your helps and guidances. I'm not too familiar with the principles, because I am a new comer.What is your idea about this articleUser:Orartu/Anti-Azerbaijanism?Is it good to be substitued with Anti-Azerbaijani agitations in Iran? With respect --Orartu (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Orartu. you're welcome, and i hope you stick around to contribute. the principles are worth learning, because they really turn out to facilitate productive conversations here, no matter how weirdly arbitrary some of them might seem at first. i'd rather stay out of the discussion of the article, because this afd conversation looks like it could use someone neutral to try to keep the conversation on track, so i think i'm going to play just that role this time.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thanks for your "keep" arguments on the Zola Levitt page. You said much of what I would, but did it in better form than I could. I just found out about the deletion and will get the Incubator version beefed up into a better page. Ghartwig (talk) 09:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

List of fictional characters ... pending deletion

Hello,

You may be interested in the discussion regarding deleting a list article regarding fictional Carpenters. I created a list of real and fictional Carpenter because other editors/admins told me to do so from the Carpenter surname page. Now others want to delete it. I was happy with the way it was and would be happy to merge the fictional Carpenters with the list of surname Carpenters. Any input, pro or con would be welcome.

See: List_of_fictional_characters_with_surname_Carpenter

Jrcrin001 (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the note. i saw the afd and put it on my watchlist, and i'll weigh in if i have something to add.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Massive edit including content changes at OWS given innocuous edit summary implying you were only fixing a cite error

Just curious. Did you mean to type something completely different in the edit summary? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

oh my, no, i don't think i actually did that. i wonder if it was some kind of server glitch? i didn't remove anything at all, but just pasted the ref in from an old diff. thanks for noticing and fixing it.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem -- I apologize for my tone. It really sort of looked like you were trying to hide a major edit with a misleading edit summary. That would be odd, I realize, but I've seen it before. Sorry! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

oh, i've seen it too. you were right to ask, and i saw no problem with your tone.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note

Many thanks for your note Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. I too have come across IPs making little changes that leave inaccurate info in the articles but don't constitute vandalism and, thus, slip through the cracks of being fact checked. You work on tracking the past entries by that IP are much appreciated. Keep up the good work and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 16:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Eugene Balabin

Thanks for adding to the article. But was Balabin really "one of a group of frequent Catholic visitors to the Sheptytsky household in Russia"? Wasn't he banned from entering the country? -- 202.124.73.90 (talk) 10:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've tracked down your ref, and I think you've misread it: it doesn't say Balabin visited Sheptytsky. -- 202.124.73.90 (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

ok, i can see how it's ambiguous. it says "another reason was supplied by the jesuit priests who were among the frequent visitors to the sheptytsky household. it was from them that roman learned about their great desire to convert russia. in fact, some jesuits, such as ivan gagarin, ivan marynov, evgenii balabin, and pavel pirling, were already working there." you're right in that "there" probably doesn't refer to the sheptytsky household, but it seems as if it refers to russia. i don't see a way to tell which it is, and neither seems to make sense given that, as you say, balabin was banned from russia. "there" might conceivably refer to the project of the conversion of russia as a metaphorical space, but that seems like a really strange way to say that. i'm mystified.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

anyway, either way, your change to the sentence in the article is a much better way to deal with what the source says, whatever the source means. nice work!— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Content changes to Nansemond-Suffolk Academy Wkipedia listing

I am new at this, however, I am wondering why you are removing factual content from NSA's wikipedia listing. Since I am charged with communications management here at NSA, and editing and updating our factual digital information is my job, I am curious how it is you are now taking that over and have done so since September. Please explain your role on the Nansemond-Suffolk Academy Wiki site and also your basis for removal of certain content. Thank you. Nsawebmaster (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

it's not your article, it's the world's article. your information may well be factual, but you need a source for it. read WP:RS for information on what counts as a source.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

csc and the daily mail

as i suspected, the daily mail wikileaks - story is not reliable [2]. in fact, it's utter misleading.-- mustihussain  17:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks for removing the misleading content.-- mustihussain  19:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks for checking the sources of the source! nice work.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

regarding the edit war with User:Filippusson there is already a discussion on the talk-page. the fact is that there is no consensus and "filippusson" is violating wp:brd, not me. he is the one who also added the "undue"-tag on the modern incidents-section which clearly states that discussion is needed... still he goes on with his edit war. in addition, please note the tone of User:Filippusson in this comment here [3]. i find this comment quite offending and disturbing.-- mustihussain  06:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

one more thing, the Marwa El-Sherbini-case is extremely notable and should be added, as well as the 2011 Norway attacks that were perpetrated by an islamophobe. the section is incomplete without these two incidents.-- mustihussain  06:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

there is another problem that has been overlooked completely. if you read the article you'll notice the subject is not "islam in europe" but the arab, mongol, and ottoman conquests. you'll also find a paragraph about piracy (obnoxiously put under "the cultural impact and christian interaction"-section), and population projects. compare this article with the article about christianity in India, a whole subcontinent that was colonized for 400 years, or christianity in asia... these don't emphasize colonial rule or conquest, but rather the history of the different congregations and their influence.-- mustihussain  19:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

IPs

No problem. I blocked the IPs, so we shouldn't hear from them for a while. If you'd like, I can semi-protect your Talk page for a day or two, or we can play pop-a-mole. Things seem to have quieted down for now. What would you like to do? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that Elockid has semi-protected it already, which is fine. Thanks again for your help.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Your welcome and hope you guys don't mind. Malik, you can probably guess where it's coming from. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah, you might be getting some nasty messages for the next couple of days, please feel free to ask me if you need your talk page protected again. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I often see your name around the place, especially in AFD circles. You're doing some great work: keep it up! — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Weird inline advertising tags and User:Emptyexistence

Re your message: Yes, the strange edits are continuing. I'm still pretty sure that it some kind of browser adware doing it. The markup is too indiscriminately targeted to be done by hand. If you Google for "<a class="inlineAdmedialink" href="#">" outside of Wikipedia, you find it popups up in forum postings, comments, etc. Anything user posted. I opened a Village pump (technical) thread about it see if anybody recognizes it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Isle of Wight Academy Changes

I see that you have defaced many different school's pages, even though they have explained that it is factual and referenced material you are deleting. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.188.230 (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not defacing them, I'm making them encyclopedic. Why? Because I care about the quality of wikipedia. Why don't you take some time to understand the purpose of this encyclopedia instead of trying to use it to promote a school. They don't have to tell me that it's factual and referenced information, they have to show the world that it is by providing references from reliable and neutral sources. That doesn't include copying material over from the school's website as you've repeatedly done at Isle of Wight Academy.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

So basically, you are a very lonely person with not a lot to do during the day who delights in undoing someone's hard work. Nice. The page is all yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.188.230 (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

William Elfving

Thanks. I didn't feel strongly about this particular person, but I did have some time today - and I am even more impatient with this nominator's cavalier dismissal of WP:BEFORE, which he/she has done many times before. --MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

User Xday and the Theodore Beale article

I see you've gotten involved with the Theodore Beale article, which is much needed. It looks like tonight he's deleted all the content and marked it a minor edit. I know there's a WP:COIN discussion ongoing and wanted to know if that should be added to the conversation there. I mean basically it seems pretty obvious that Xday is Ted Beale/Vox Day, he wants his Wikipedia article to be all about his old band, his video games, and his fantasy books, and really hates the idea of having his views on women and minorities included even though he publishes regularly about them in his syndicated column, so he's edit warring. Is that an unreasonable conclusion?76.218.68.67 (talk) 13:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me, and I first looked at the article because of the COIN discussion. On the other hand, Xday hasn't self-identified as Beale, right? The best thing for me right now seems to be to keep editing for a while and trying to get Xday to participate in conversations (I can see from the talk page that that can be frustrating), and see how things develop. I don't want to post about the editor on a noticeboard just for one petulant page-blanking, even though it is disruptive, esp the weird edit summary and the marking of it as minor. Anyway, I'm going to try just discussing for a while and looking for more secondary sources about his views.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I am not likely to be able to do much editing this week but I added some comments at the talk page about some searching I've done for sources, and the question about the Alexa.com source which I am uneasy about.76.218.68.67 (talk) 07:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

work on scentura

Thank you thanks for your edits on Scentura Calendar2 (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The Isaacson Affair

Hi Alf,

Just thought I’d give you some additional research material regarding the Isaacson affair in order to more easily put it into perspective. I will leave what transpires after you read this material to you and the other editors. And BTW, your links to the two “New Haven Register” articles on the subject, in the Peggy Adler article, are not currently connected to their sources at the Internet.

If I can find third party sources for the following paragraph, I will let you know. The rest of what I am sending, after the following paragraph, does have links, as you will see, to third party sources.

The Board of Ethics at the time I filed the complaint against Arthur Isaacson was comprised of three members – two Republicans and one Democrat -- any or all of whom could be appointed or elected Town Board or Commission members, as well as being members of either the Democratic Town Committee (DTC) or the Republican Town Committee (RTC). All three appointees were selected by the DTC & RTC. And one of the RTC/Board of Ethics members had just nominated Arthur Isaacson to be their party’s candidate for the office of First Selectman immediately prior to the time I filed my complaint. She and the other Republican voted not to investigate my ethics complaint. So Isaacson was not really cleared. My complaint was dismissed. When I then went to Town Counsel and the AG they both to sent it back to the Board of Selectmen (BOS) and the wording in the then Ethics Ordinance. The Board of Selectmen responded by what follows and is available with sourcing found on the Internet, for which I have provided the links.

03/17/2005, “Clinton Selectman prevails in Conflict of Interest Complaint” by Stan Fisher, NH Register.

05/11/2005 Board of Selectmen meeting: > “Ad-Hoc Ethics Committee - Discussion: On a motion by Donovan, seconded by Mezzetti, Barbara Webb and Hubert Adams were appointed to a new Code of Ethics Review Committee. The present Code was enacted in 1971, confirmed in 1977 and re-confirmed in 1989. The Selectmen have agreed that it should be reviewed and possibly updated, and plan to appoint a total of five members to this Committee. Three others have been contacted but were unable to attend this meeting this evening. A meeting will be convened when all are available. Webb and Adams were sworn in by First Selectman McCusker at 7:15 p.m.” > “Selectman's Report: Isaacson noted that on March 23, 2005 a decision of the Board of Ethics concerning him was to have been given to Town Attorney John Bennet for his review and advice. To date there has been no reply.” > “A reply has not yet been received from the town attorney re a question from Isaacson in connection with a recent charge of conflict of interest.” (Source: http://clintonct.com/selectmenminutes.html )

06/25/2005, “Clinton Town Attorney Upholds Power of Ethics Board” by Stan Fisher, “NH Register”

11/15/2006, New Ethics Ordinance enacted by BOS

01/05/2007, New Ethics Ordinance effective on 1/5/2007

§51-6. Board of Ethics. A. There shall be a Board of Ethics consisting of five regular members. The members shall be appointed by the Board of Selectmen to serve five-year terms in accordance with §§ 2-3 and 7-8 of the Town of Clinton Charter. The terms are to be staggered and no member shall serve more than two consecutive terms. Any member having served two consecutive terms shall be ineligible for reappointment to the Board for a period of two years. B. All members shall be electors of the municipality. No member shall hold or campaign for any public office, be a member of a political Town committee or serve as a member of any other municipal agency, commission or board. A person will not be disqualified from serving on the Board if he/she has a member of his/her immediate family employed by the Town or the Clinton Board of Education. (Source: http://www.ecode360.com/CL2816?needHash=true )

I am thrilled with the outcome, for the best thing that came out of my complaint is that the Town of Clinton has a much better Ethics Ordinance than before and the criteria for membership and the selection of the Commission members is no longer subject to partiality, partisanship and influence peddling.

Best Wishes, Bxzooo 23:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)(talk)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 114 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Windsor, England

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

XL Recordings

Hi, thank you for your welcome and message. I appreciate your help. The Xl Recordings article contains a number of factual errors that I was trying to correct, using references. I appreciate this might seem like COI but it seemed more honourable to make the changes as the label rather than a pseudonym. As I said, the changes I'm making improve the article, are factually correct, and contain references. How do you advise these changes are made without causing COI issues.

User:Xlrecordings Xlrecordings (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the best way to do it is. I think that at a minimum, you should change your username to something non-promotional, per WP:CORPNAME. I've seen them block accounts immediately for violating this policy, so you should do that as soon as possible. Also, just follow guidelines in WP:COI and ask at WP:COIN for advice if there're any edits you want to make that might conceivably be controversial in any way?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks. I'll read the guidelines, and create a new, unrelated account. Thanks again. Xlrecordings (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

Many thanks for helping me out with this. I've tried doing all that citing before but for some reason I screw something up, so although i'm being legit, lots of my edits could indeed get reverted. I'll turn to you if I find some more items I'm working on (mainly in the music department right now!) Take care! Ab Pmil (talk) 08:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Minor Edits

OK, i will not mark any edits as minor, even those that are purely grammatical/style-related. Doowelgnip (talk) 12:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Formatting

Alf, could you please show me or refer me to a page here where I can learn the proper formatting for sources? I've tried to emulate what I see in terms of the methodology of referencing but I sometimes still have a problem with the content looking "clean" on the reference list. DVMt (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The best place to look is WP:CITE, also this Wikipedia:Citation templates is quite good. I think the cite.php method is the best, although that's also always up for discussion on a given page.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Check for socking?

I noticed that the person who re-added Nelson Montana only has a small edit history, so I'm pretty sure it's a sock. Do you know how to check for this? Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

That occurred to me too, but I was too sleepy last night to deal with it. You can go to WP:SPI to file a report. It's a little complicated but no harder than doing an AFD manually. If you haven't done it before, it'll be good experience for you! If you don't end up doing it, I'll probably look into it myself at some point. At least the article creator is probably a sock of the one that's editing it a lot now. Let me know what you decide to do.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I filed a report- I hope I did it right! I did notice that there is a Huff Post blogger with the same name as the Samantha Marshall editor, so it's possible that she was enlisted to add his page. Either way it's an abuse of the system, I guess.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

P. Oxy.

Thanks for your help. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. Thanks for starting the project. I'll keep working on them, and even start new ones if you don't have time. I'm going to work on a template for navigation also, so let me know if you have ideas. I'm excited by the one coming up that may have cryptography in it. Do you know of analysis of that one?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you create P. Oxy. 101-200. We will see what to do later. Every manuscript is important for scholars. We should popularise our knowledge for usual readers. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I will work on them, yes.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The best way of categorization is according to the editions (I volume, II volume, III volume, etc. ). Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 09:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, so maybe we should have subcategories of the main P. Oxy. category, one per volume? I'll figure out how to do that.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, one for volume I think. Rearrangement of the navigation template to be organized by volume - good idea. Your articles are good. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 14:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Winitsky

Yes, I noticed Winitsky on your list last night. I've gotta work today, but if you want to go from zero to a B article tomorrow, I'd be keen. Hell, I might have a little time this morning to get it rolling... Carrite (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I've got it roughly framed out, to use the builders' term. I've gotta hit the shower for work in a few minutes and will be out of the loop all day. Have fun!!! Carrite (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice work on that, by the way! I'm very pleased that you managed to find a death date — that's about 2/3 of the battle sometimes. I've still got a few more sources to mine today but it's starting to get pretty close. I was REALLY surprised not to find an obit for him in the Socialist Call, which was the official organ of the Socialist Party.

By the way, there is another of the five NY Criminal Anarchism defendants of 1920 that still doesn't have a Wikipedia bio — Isaac Edward Ferguson. If you'd like to tag team something on him in the near future, that would be swell from my perspective. I'm certain he'd clear the notability bar, he was a personal secretary to William Bross Lloyd, a top lieutenant to C.E. Ruthenberg in 1920, a prominent lawyer, and I suspect there's a hidden mainstream political history for him after he drops off my radar in the middle 1920s. Died on an unknown exact date in Feb. 1962. You might see if you can search up enough NYT articles for something like this to hold your interest. Let me know if he's of interest. Carrite (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! There seems to be very little in the NYT on Ferguson. The only mention I can find of him is that he was one of the prisoners moved from Sing Sing to Auburn during the 1921 mayoral election in order to make it harder for him to consult with campaign workers (I left a note about this on Gitlow's talk page). He's just mentioned in a list in that article, and doesn't even seem to get his name in the articles on the trial. I'm going to look at it more carefully, though, to make sure that it's not just a problem with my search strings.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Workers League

In answer to a query on the Winitsky talk page — yes, the Workers League is worth an article, but it was problematic for me to source out. I know what it was and where it was and when it was and who was in it, but the origins and development hasn't really been written up in the secondary literature. This is not insurmountable, obviously, just something that makes things a little more difficult than they otherwise might be. Do you really have a good pile of Times stuff? Interest in doing this one? I'm sure I can find some things in the contemporary Communist press... Carrite (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm really interested in doing it. There's a ton of stuff in the NYT about them, but they're not going to have any useful or true information on their origins or development, just on their activities. Also, there's enough that I have to print it out to be able to make sense of it (organizations are harder than biographies in this way). I'll try to sandbox something in the next few days, though. There's so much to be done in this area!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Shiplacoff

I'll spend an hour "framing out" Shiplacoff for ya. He's definitely on my radar as someone that needs an article. Not positive if I have a photo, but there's a chance. Carrite (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I've got a rough frame up at Abraham Shiplacoff. I was a little shocked to see he didn't have a listing in the American Labor Who's Who of 1925, which is probably why I haven't attacked his bio previously, so I just entered in material out of my database — which is, of course, not a sufficient source for WP. I'll need to "reverse engineer" the material to footnote the important factoids there shortly. I'll turn it over to you for the time being. Carrite (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll get on it in the next couple of hours.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I should be done going through this by tonight. Have you ever done a DYK? I haven't, but I thought that being the first socialist elected to the NY state assembly might be a nice one. What do you think?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)'

That would seem to be a good factoid. Give me another day or two to see if I can find some more sourced info — I dropped a line to a professor friend who's an expert in the 1920s Yiddish-language Socialist movement and maybe he has ideas. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Edits are welcome

Thanks for the fixes and feel free to clean up anything else I've messed up on User:Gerardw/Notes on civility Gerardw (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice essay, by the way; I linked to it from my user page. Thanks for saying that.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

	Oxyrhynchus papyri
	For your excellent work on the Oxyrhynchus papyri. Keep up the great work! Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I like your work. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

New templates

Bonjour,

You may now use two templates : {{Nomen sacrum}} and {{Papyrus siglum}}, e. g.

• {{Nomen sacrum|ΙΗΣ}} : ΙΗΣ ;
• {{Papyrus siglum|13}} : ${\mathfrak {P}}$¹³ (without link) ;
• {{Papyrus siglum|13|}} : ${\mathfrak {P}}$¹³ (with link).

Better than esoteric expressions !

Budelberger (   ) 23:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

Nice work, thanks!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Fish articles

Hi. I agree there's something odd going on. It looks like there may be a class project to write articles about fish, and the students don't understand how to write Wikipedia articles. You might want to mention it to WP:WikiProject Fishes, so they can be on the lookout for future students. You can try WP:AN/I, maybe somebody knows what's going on. Other than that I don't know what to suggest. Neither of those accounts was linked to a class project at WP:School and university projects. Sorry, I just don't know what else to suggest. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

OK< thanks for your help. It's very strange, but it does remind me of student writing. Also the fact that they all show up on sunday night screams "deadline" to me.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, noticed that User:Jkaitchu went back and reverted the edits you made to the Etheostoma neopterum page. I noticed that there were quite a few people who went back and readded their information after you reverted it. Just wanted to let you know. I changed what I could verify was disruptive editing by Jkaitchu but I was unsure of some of the other bits since one of the biggies was that it was unsourced. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Yeah, I saw that you reverted that. My feeling is that they're students, and their professor didn't give them good guidelines, and something's due tomorrow, so they're all staying up late trying to get it done, and nothing's really going to happen until the morning anyway. I filed a report on WP:ANI, but until the prof talks, there's probably little to be done. Although there is some sentiment at ANI for blocking them, it seems. That seems harsh to me, poor things.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

True- I don't think they realize how they're being seen. I wish they'd respond on their talk page so people could know what's going on as far as their end goes. If they don't stop and they don't respond to explain their actions, there isn't much left to do. I do feel sort of bad for them. It wouldn't be the first time that students have gotten in trouble because of what their professor told them to do or forgot to tell them about editing Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

• The three fish articles I looked at were not too bad as first efforts, with proper footnoting, etc. Obviously in need of some helping hands with matters of wikification and style, but huge improvements over the stubs that were there before. This strikes me as a very GOOD class project, if that's what it was, and we should all be careful to welcome the help rather than to drive new contributors away. Carrite (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it will get a response but I left a message at Wikipedia talk:Ambassadors#Unmonitored student projects to see if there was anyone with more experience who could help. I think it's finished for this year, but since it's been going on since 2010 it may reoccur next year. As has been mentioned some of the work seems okay but stuff like the management recommendations probably don't belong. Although to be fair, given the absence of contact from the editors, and the fact we aren't sure what this is for (possibly for University of Tennessee based on the IP address seems to be all we really know) I don't know how easy it would be to get in contact with who's in charge. Anyway if you ever found anything more, you may want to post it there. Nil Einne (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)