User talk:ClaretAsh/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Adelaide[edit]

Hi Lincolncooper, after watching the Wikipedia:WikiProject Adelaide page for a while I've just registered as a participant, as there has been some recent discussion on the associated talk page about having a meetup on January 15 (Wikipedia's 10th birthday). Given your interest, you may want to consider joining as well.

There hasn't been a meetup for quite a while apparently, byt I imagine that it could be a very good opportunity to discuss issues, priorities and coordination to advance the project. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barkan mounts tagging[edit]

Howdy, I saw you tagged Barkan mounts for notability. I was wondering if the discussion on the talk page answers your (implicit) question. If it does than you might want to remove the tag. If not, I'm happy to discuss it with you at Talk:Barkan mounts. Joe407 (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help please[edit]

I am currently working on de-orphaning articles and some of the articles I come across are of the year in place format (e.g. 1845 in France). I'd like to de-orphan these sort of articles by linking them into a series, but some of the required articles don't yet exist. For example, I'd like to link 1241 in Italy to 1240 in Italy and 1242 in Italy. In that example, the latter two articles don't yet exist. Therefore, I'd like to see if there is some sort of guideline to creating and formatting these types of articles, especially in terms of topics included, order in which subheadings are listed etc. If need be, I could do it myself as I have started to do in some of the Adelaide suburb articles. However, even if I simply create the required articles with one or two lines of text, it will still be a huge task and I'd rather not go it alone.
Any advice would be much appreciated.
~ ~ : Lincoln Cooper : ~ ~ (talk) 09:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you copy the format from those that already exist, e.g. 1845 in France, and just change the information. You don't have to create those articles that you want to link of course, just linking them is sufficient, because if they are red linked, it will encourage others to create them. For help with such articles, you might want to contact the editors of Wikipedia:WikiProject Years which is dedicated to such articles. A guideline can be found at Wikipedia:Timeline standards. Regards SoWhy 10:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tranmere House[edit]

FYI, the Messenger isn't a particularly foolproof source. Tranmere House was built by John Morphett's little brother George; when I find the reference, I'll change the article accordingly.

In the meantime, it would seem Hunt had something to do with ownership of the house - if you find a relevant reference, I'd appreciate you bringing it to my attention. BTW: If you are interested, I've been accumulating data at User:Pdfpdf/George Morphett. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Have just removed the innaccuracies pending something more reliable.
I came across the source because I was looking for a more accurate address for Tranmere House other than the previous "visible from Magill Road". Actually, I was wondering why there was such a divergence between the source and the article (Morphett vs Hunt). Now I know.
~ ~ : Lincoln Cooper : ~ ~ (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given your possible interest in Adelaide history, you may be interested in List of historic houses in South Australia. I've been trying to fill in the gaps, (e.g. I'm really surprised I haven't found anything definitive about "Carclew"), but I've also been adding new-to-me "discoveries". (BTW, The Mitcham Council has identified a new batch for me at Urrbrae, South Australia.)
Anyway, there you will notice that in addition to the Messenger, the City of Campbelltown's comment at: Desired Character Statements, extracts from Existing City of Campbelltown Development Plan, Appendix A, Strategic Directions Urban Character Study, City of Campbelltown, Pg.42, March 2010
I also found some others, but can't put my finger on them at the moment. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Globe Derby Park (stadium)[edit]

This is an automated message from 173.45.72.122. I have performed a search with the contents of Globe Derby Park (stadium), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Globe Derby Park, South Australia. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. 173.45.72.122 (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth[edit]

I have replied at User talk:Pdfpdf#Elizabeth. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That all sounds good to me. Give me a "hoi" if you think I can add anything useful. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, (possibly?), I've been adding to Talk:Local Government Areas of South Australia. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I wondered how long that would stay there ... Pdfpdf (talk) 04:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Until something better came long... LordVetinari (talk) 06:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have replied at Talk:Local Government Areas of South Australia. Thanks for the heads-up. LordVetinari (talk) 06:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy again! I can't work out why you made these changes. Can you enlighten me? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I see the edits like that, I can understand your confusion. I recently discovered the refname citation thingy so, last night, I finally got around to fixing up the citation errors on the suburbs articles I'd already altered. While there, I also decided to fix my little "citation-in-the-Demographics-title" error. (See here for an example of what I was doing). When I got to Elizabeth, I had to add in citations for the other two unreferenced paragraphs anyway, and I found it easier to continue copy-pasting the ABS refname I'd used elsewhere. Anyway, feel free to change the refname back if you like. Sorry to confuse you and hope this explains things. LordVetinari (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Yes, it makes more sense when put into context. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Globe Derby Park a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message. I didn't learn about the undesirability of a "cut and paste move" until after the fact. However, although it's near impossible to tell now (what with other people renaming the pages concerned, renaming them again, redirecting them and mixed them together), I don't think I copied the entirety of an article. If I recall correctly, I copied the majority of the text to a new page (refer here). I remember that while I was in the middle of editing the two pages, someone placed a notification at the top of the new page advising that the content was similar. I removed this as it was premature and I then added the talk page comment referred to above.
Anyway, it all seems a hopeless muddle now and I apologise for my earlier copy-paste error.
LordVetinari (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A7 Speedy deletion[edit]

I have removed three of your A7 tagging as the articles give indications of possible notability. The A7 criteria states "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." Hence it is not necessary for an article to "establish" notability to avoid speedy. Dpmuk (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Romanesque architecture[edit]

I notice that you added a link to the church at Cascina, SS Ippolito and whatever, into a description of a picture of the facade at Pisa Cathedral. Well, the Cascina church is certainly in that district, but you can't write "see also...." after a description of a building that is in many ways quite dissimlar. It was the wrong place to put it. Amandajm (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in answering. It took me a while to find what article you were referring to. I assume it's this article? In hindsight, I admit I should have phrased the link better (not used "see also"). However, as the bulk of the paragraph doesn't refer to Pisa Cathedral (only the last sentence does, and then only as an exemplar), it still seemed like the best location in that article to add a link. I won't argue the point, though. If you can find a better location for the link, go ahead. Nonetheless, thank you for letting me know. LordVetinari (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The word "cathedral" had been inadvertantly left out of the first sentence. Everything in that sentence (as with all the dotted points in that article) pertains specifically to the building that it represented in the picture. Amandajm (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning on logging in[edit]

Hi. Going forward, please remember to log in when you want to edit. Editing while logged out can make it look like multiple editors are involved, and that's a violation of Wikipedia policy. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you please provide examples. Incidentally, I am not only well aware that sock puppetry is against WP policy, I also have neither inclination nor motive to do it. Sending me this warning makes it seem as though I am. Regards LordVetinari (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Damn! I'm sorry about that. This message was meant for the master of sockpuppet case that you opened, not for you. You can just delete this whole thing if you want. Sorry again. :/ — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by my IP?[edit]

Prior to logging in, I received a notification of new messages on my talk page. However, it actually referred to the talk page for my IP address. There, a message informed me of unconstructive edits (vandalism) made to a page. On the date concerned, (indeed, for the past several months), only two other people have had access to this computer and neither is sufficiently computer literate to edit wikipedia either contructively or otherwise; not to mention their levels of maturity and good sense and, thus, lack of inclination to make unconstructive edits. I also categorically state that I did not make those edits. Is it possible, then, that the edits may somehow have been misattributed? Could someone have hacked in remotely? Is there another explanation? I'm very puzzled by all this.LordVetinari (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On many ISPs, IP addresses are allocated dynamically, so that you get a different IP every time you connect. Are you sure yours is a static IP? I wouldn't worry about it unless it happens again. JohnCD (talk) 11:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. It seems it is dynamic. Now I know what that means.LordVetinari (talk) 12:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox[edit]

How about {{User:Strdst grl/ubx/octarine}} (Not an original of mine, but what goes around comes around.)

Or one created for me from my non-boxy things by Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia - {{User:Peridon/Userboxes/kid}}

Otherwise, I'm swiping legitimately copying open source material in the form of the UU box - although I would have thought His Lordship would have preferred a bread roll and a bowl of soup... Peridon (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

?? LordVetinari (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have a userbox saying you're looking for another one, although if you get one, you will need to get rid of the appeal one which will leave you with a gap... Your namesake is rather known for frugality in his choice of food (although when he was locked up in his own dungeon the rats brought him some interesting items). Peridon (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oooohh. Now I understand. Although I had to go back and re-read my userboxes, every last one of them. I didn't realise that box acted as an appeal (assuming you mean it advertises to other users in the same way as a refimprove or db tag). I added it ages ago and thought it was an appropriate closure to the previous box. Anyway, thanks for pointing out those two boxes. I did see the octarine one but didn't like the colour. UU seemed like the best of a small bunch.
On a similar topic, would you know somone who could template-ise my stamp collecting userbox. I suspect I'm not the only one who'd use it.
BTW, I don't know if His Lordship enjoys the dinners at UU, but I did read that he once got drunk there so evidently he found something to his liking. LordVetinari (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Use {{subst:User:LordVetinari/userboxes/stamp}}. To do it with another, do what I did. I created a link on your userpage to a subpage (stamp) of a subpage (userboxes), then previewed the change, clicked the redlink and pasted your coding into that and saved it (but closed the main userpage WITHOUT saving). Putting it in wiggly brackets with subst: gives it portability. You can put a link somewhere to the userpages subpage - I just remember mine. (Only the ones created for me in mine - haven't worked out the coding bit yet. I worked out the subst bit when I found the new ones were all loose and floppy.) If you don't like what I've called it, you can 'move' it to a preferred name and get the duff one deleted. (Was he really drunk? Yes, just the once. Other times he was pretending.) Peridon (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! Thanks for that. LordVetinari (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Fish Smarty[edit]

Hello LordVetinari. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Fish Smarty, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. GedUK  11:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PRODs[edit]

Hi, thanks for your efforts, but please remember to use the "|concern=" parameter of the PROD template to explain why you believe an article should be deleted. In the case of Business Analyst Publication, I copied your edit summary for the deletion log, but blank PRODs are usually declined. Cheers, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Didn't realise. LordVetinari (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Estonian Monarchist League[edit]

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

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

A tag has been placed on Estonian Monarchist League requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} at the top of the article, immediately below the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate), and providing your reasons for contesting on the article's talk page, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

You may want to read the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. Andreslinholm (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Hi, I saw again that you wish to delete the Page, I really do not understand why, then you should delete also the British Monarchist League page and so on??? Estonian Monarchist League does have 1500 members all over the world, if you wish to have more information please visit: www.estonian-monarchist.org.uk Thank you Andres[reply]

Hi Andres. First of all, thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. As it happens, however, Estonian Monarchist League is subject to the same criteria as every other article.
Primarily, I draw your attention to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). For an organisation to be included in an encyclopedia, there are certain conditions of notability that must be met, in particular verifiable third-party sources.
I have looked over the website you noted above and have two further points I should mention. The text of the Estonian Monarchist League article appears to have been copied from the About Us section on your website. If this is the case, I suggest you peruse Wikipedia:Copyrights for further information. Incidentally, while viewing your website, I noted that your name appeared there in the Manorial Society section. If you're directly involved with the Monarchist League, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
Regarding the British Monarchist League, as I haven't edited that page, I am in no position to comment.
Nonetheless, I hope the pages I've mentioned above will be of help to you. Regards LordVetinari (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Begin in the name of Allah the most Beneficent the most Merciful. All praises to Allah alone.[edit]

Begin in the name of Allah the most Beneficent the most Merciful. All praises to Allah alone. The above statement is being undone on Dreamworld Pakistan. This is how we are suppose to start are every work. This is how we start our day before even getting out of bed, the first prayer as we start driving our car, the first statement we write in our page as we open up a page in writing-pad in our office, the first statement we read when our computers are opened, the first statement before putting in first bite in our mouth when eating and so on.

Thus, it is a humble request to not to delete this again as this is how all my contributions will be beginning. Otherwise it will not be possible for me to put in any further contributions, even in fact might not even return to Wiki again. Of course that will not affect anyone in any manner but yes at least my protest will still be there some where in the cluster. May Allah bless you, your family and all of us many many more specially with the strength of Faith in Him alone. Tariq hilal (talk) 10:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Tariq Hilal[reply]

CSD notification[edit]

Please don't forget to notify the creator of an article when you nominate for CSD, e.g. 2tion and please note that lack of notability is not a valid CSD criterion.--SPhilbrickT 13:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barbaro book[edit]

i did not mean to violate any rules, and certainly don't want to spam wikipedia. i had only created one article in the past, Fair Hill Training Center. I had no problem with that, and since I have just written this book, I thought I would add it to wikipedia. Any pointers on what would move it from a spammy article to a relevant article would be great. Alexbrown — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrown (talk • contribs) 14:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Total Beauty Media[edit]

Hello LordVetinari, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Total Beauty Media, 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. Logan Talk Contributions 18:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I re-read CSD and still fail to see how it doesn't qualify. I also struggle to understand why a mere up-and-coming business deserves a place in an encyclopedia. But then, I am very old-school in that respect. LordVetinari (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vandalism[edit]

Hello. Yes, if someone vandalizes after receiving a final warning, report them to AIV. I've already done it. Regards, --T H F S W (T · C · E) 00:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 February 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parc_Jean-Jacques_Rousseau[edit]

Thank you for your contribution to this new article, which I am still working on. I know in theory I should do it in userspace but the linking etc is quite hard to do there so I basically tossed a coin and decided to do it in mainspace hoping I would do more good than harm that way. I am working on it and hopefully it will not all be in French by the end of the day!

It is always a tricky one to decide. I have had articles deleted from my userspace while they are in the middle of translation, which I think technically is wrong and also very frustrating. So I made the decision and I stand responsible for it, but it is practically easier to do it in mainspace than userspace. I will leave your heading on there though (if I accidentally deleted it in an edit please restore it and I assure you it would be an accident while I get several versions of the article etc and accidentally cut or paste over it).

I have already asked advice at WP:PNT and am taking some of it. I have had an extended wikibreak so am just kinda remembering what's what. So please excuse my errors.

My sincere best wishes Si Trew (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy[edit]

I was using the copy-paste method to add the same navbox template to a series of articles when I stopped to edit a job application covering letter. Afterwards, I returned to wikipedia and continued where I left off. However, I forgot to re-copy the text I wanted and inadvertently did this. Although I promptly reverted it, it is still accessible to anyone who cares to look at the history of that article. Is there any way that edit could be permanently removed or hidden for privacy's sake? Thank you LordVetinari (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to help you, but if you want to respond, please do it on my user talk page. I don't like stalking others either. ;) Anyway, you'll find directions for that process at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. If you'd like any further help, contact me on my user talk page or put a {{help me}} template up on your own user talk page and someone will be along to help you. :) Banaticus (talk) 13:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did a rev del of the edits (my first one, so please make sure it worked the way you want.) That makes the material unviewable to any except admins. If that is not enough, you can go to Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.--SPhilbrickT 13:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 February 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, ClaretAsh. You have new messages at Sadads's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I responded, Sadads (talk) 13:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, one more response on my talk, Sadads (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parc Jean-Jacques Rousseau[edit]

Thank you for your encouragement on my talk page about this article. I asked at WP:PNT here too. The difficulty I always have with these is the links and ideally I would of course have done the translation in user space then moved it. It is not so much the links out of the article but the links in to it  – since I am trying to tie up a series of articles that seemed somewhat poor, and so there would have been red links in from other articles, which the Red Link Police would then probably remove. So I took the decision to create it straight in the mainspace, at least people have the lead section etc etc even if the rest needs work on. That may have been the wrong decision, I could have created a stub then moved over, but again they often seem to get to CSD or AfD as being kinda useless articles. So i took the decision, and perhaps it was the wrong one, but it seemed it would do some good and little harm.

This article to me seems far too long for a relatively minor topic but for myself I always find the best way is to translate it all first, then cut cut cut. If one does it the other way round, a pertinent fact may be accidentally cut instead of a trivial one.

I thank you for your understanding. It's given me encouragement to get on with it  – unfortunately I had a rather serious bump on the head a few days ago thast I was recommended to go to hospital for and a bit stupidly refused, so been a bit out of it and have not been quite myself (not that I am much when I am myself). Si Trew (talk) 09:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear about the bump. Regarding links leading in, I know what a nuisance they can be. If you want practice connecting articles, have a look at Category:Orphaned articles. Incidentally, a good way to de-orphan several articles is to create a footer template (navbox, navbar, whatever). I created Template:Lakes in Norway after I found that so many of the relevant articles were orphaned. Now, they're fixed. Anyway, have fun and if you think you'll get any trouble about any major edits, just do it in your userspace first until it's up to scratch. LordVetinari (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 February 2011[edit]

We meet again![edit]

Nothing personal about the prod - that was one of many in a batch! It came out of the work I've been doing on Category:England navbox templates by county and subcats, including the education ones: one aspect is getting the navboxes to match the categories, and some of the counties turned out to have a lot of non-notable primary school stubs, not mentioned on the navboxes. There turned out to be a lot in Yorkshire but I'm going to work through the other counties (generally less bad) at some point.

Actually I was going to make a similar point re your Norwegian lakes navbox. It's so huge it's almost unnavigable - it would be more useful in navigational terms to put a link to the main list as a "See also"? One alternative might be to nest the counties like this:

Or alternatively (probably better in my opinion), to make separate templates for each county, maybe just covering e.g. the top 10 lakes in ranked size for each county? Being a near-orphan isn't necessarily a problem; what we really need is better commune-level articles that include coverage of the local lakes. The inbound links from a commune article are "value adding" in the sense they bind together two closely-related articles and add information/context to someone reading the commune article. I'm not convinced that one navbox link among many, from a random minor lake in Nordland to a random minor lake in Troms, adds much value to either article? It doesn't do much more than the category system already does, anyway.

From WP:NAVBOX: "Navigation templates provide navigation

  • The goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space. Ask yourself, does this help the reader in reading up on related topics? Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?
  • They should be kept small in size as a large template has limited navigation value. "

On the other hand, you're definitely right to suggest navboxes. One solution would be to follow what's been done, patchily, for English rivers: again, I've been working a little on Category:English river navbox templates by county. Any thoughts? TheGrappler (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Talk:List of lakes in Norway LordVetinari (talk) 06:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Puffery'?[edit]

Dear 'Lord Vetinari',

I am a new wikipedia user/contributor, and I saw you edited an article on author Jean-Louis de Biasi I tried to write. I saw what you took out, and it says the reason is that it was 'puffery' material. I am confused. I could change the language a bit more again, but really, I added this information to show what was characteristic of the work of the author. He is a contemporary occultist drawing on (RE quoting and interpreting) ancient philosophy. This is rather unsual, and I thought the article would gain in texture and quality by adding this as it shows the specificity of de Biasi's contribution to the field of esotericism. Please tell me if I am wrong in approaching it this way, and how I can improve this article.

Thanks,

Pentad55 (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Pentad55[reply]

Moved discussion to Talk:Jean-Louis de Biasi LordVetinari (talk) 08:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Declining CSD[edit]

Hi ClaretAsh/Archive 1. Thank you for patrolling new pages. I'm just letting you know that I declined to delete Zorquivemess, that you tagged for speedy deletion because Not CSD G2 test page. Possibly a doubtfull neologism. The criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers, and to review the criteria for speedy deletion, especially what is considered non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion, proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent for deletion discussion. --Kudpung (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. As it happens, whenever I patrol new pages, I have WP:CSD open in another tab for easy reference. Incidentally, WP:CSD only states what a test page is not, not what it is. As I recall, I was going to tag that article under G1 but, when I saw another NPP had tagged a similar article as a test page, I followed their example and tagged this one the same. LordVetinari (talk) 07:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New page patrol is a thankless task - I know only too well! However, as a lot of newer editors do their best to help out in this important function, they don't always get it right (even I don't sometimes), so it's best to look at the criteria page as you are doing, rather than rely on someone else's choice. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 07:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was just looking at the user page of another NPP (name suppressed). There were strongly-worded userboxes outlining contentious politicial views. There were dogmatic announcements of their Wikipedia philosophy. And there was a proud claim of their work as a New Page Patroller. Out of curiosity, I checked their history and imagine my surprise when I saw they'd only been on Wiki for a month!! I'm pretty new myself but... LordVetinari (talk) 11:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CSD criteria[edit]

Hi. Just letting you know that the correct criterion for the page Grass monkey is A1, not A3. Please see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. --Kudpung (talk) 07:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but WP:CSD clearly includes "a rephrasing of the title" under A3. LordVetinari (talk) 07:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Debatable: 'Monkeys that live in grass' is a bit more than a rephrasing of the title, but anyway it's gone as it should be :) Kudpung (talk) 07:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPP[edit]

Hi. Have you tried using WP:Twinkle? It provides a drop-down menu of all the CSD criteria, it tags the pages automatically, and automatically informs the creator. It saves a lot of time and takes out most of the guesswork. If you need any help in installing it, don't hesitate to let me know. --Kudpung (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Installed it. Let me know if I stuff up. LordVetinari (talk) 11:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of experienced editors are currently monitoring the new page patrolling to establish whether or not a loss of several thousand pages from the backlog is due to over enthusiastic patrolling or due to a technical glitch since the site software was upgraded two weeks ago. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Special:NewPages only displaying the latest 50 new pages. If you come across anything odd, let us know. --Kudpung (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. LordVetinari (talk) 11:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Nicholean Catholic Church[edit]

File:Patriarch official.JPG
See bottom left of picture

I have declined this speedy, because I don't think this is a hoax in the sense of intent to deceive, or (probably) of a joke - they have gone to too much trouble. However I very much doubt whether it is notable, and I shall do a little more digging around and then probably take it to AfD (unless you get there first). Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it might. As I said on the talk page, I wasn't sure whether we or the patriarch were being hoaxed. I've seen many cases before (outside WP) of "heirs" to non-existent thrones bestowing imaginary honours. See here, for example, especially the mention of the "Aetherius Church". Anyway, I would have taken the article to AFD but I'm not sure how. Also, I must admit that a speedy nomination seemed like a good way of getting admin attention. LordVetinari (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The author has withdrawn it. There was a note on the talk page from the bishop expressing distress at the word "hoax"; I have explained to him that there was no suggestion that his church was a hoax, only that the article might be. JohnCD (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'd have more empathy with the bishop's "distress" if his church hadn't been established only a month ago, if the church's webpage wasn't built on a free web hosting site, and if there were any reliable third-party sources to back up the claims. Also, in traditional christian thought (upon which the bishop claims to base his church's rites), a church is not an organisation but simply a group of people gathered together under christ; I see the beginnings of an organisation but, so far, the group of people appears to have a grand total of one. All in all, I would have thought "His Holiness" would be more distressed that he was photographed praying in front of a statue of buddha. LordVetinari (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 March 2011[edit]

Please dont delete Panderica article[edit]

Hi, I am william red bull,I want the panderica article to be in wikipedia. panderica article really explains the culture followed in U.S.A(Indiana) and in India.so this article may help every one to know about the modern culture following in USA and India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamRedBull (talk • contribs) 04:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but it is not up to me and as I mentioned on your talk page, you should explain your reasons for keeping the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panderica. This is also stated in the box at the top of the Panderica article.
You state above that the article "really explains the culture followed in U.S.A (Indiana) and in India". I disagree, however, so I'll explain my reasons and perhaps that might help you to improve the article.
But, first of all, I note that you mention Indiana here but, in the article, there is no mention of that state. Unless it was a mistake, this is inconsistent.
I'll now discuss the text of the article by first stating the sentence as it currently stands then by describing any questions about it.
  1. Panderica refers to a group of people that includes both Americans and the Indians. → Which Americans? Why are those people categorised together under a single name? What verifiable sources are there for that name?
  2. Panderica's slogan is " mix East with West". According to the Panderica group, "people must worship both Jesus and Shiva". → So, should the reader assume Panderica is a religious group? An organisation? Or something else? It needs to be explained.
  3. The word Panderica derived from Pandyas, a community in India, and from America. → If Panderica refers to Americans and Indians, why are Native Americans in the United States included in the See also section? There seems to be some confusion here between Indians from India and the people formerly called "Red Indians".
  4. Panderica plays an important role in the unity between the Hindus and Christians. → How does it play an important role and can you cite sources to verify that claim.
  5. Panderica is a new culture started in Southern India. → How and when did this "new" culture begin? Again, can you cite sources in verification?
Overall, it seems the article explains very little about Panderica. What appears to be a couple of books have been noted at the bottom but, in the absence of inline citations or an ISBN, the reader has no way to verify any particular claim made in the text. Although you aren't the article's creator, I suggest you read WP:YFA. I also urge you to participate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panderica as the community will only delete the article unless someone gives a credible reason why it should be kept. LordVetinari (talk) 07:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well Done![edit]

Excellent work creating that template! Keep up the good effort! A Very Manly Man (talk) 07:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 March 2011[edit]

Shree Kshetra Korthan Khandoba Devastan[edit]

Hi, I'm no expert but this temple might be the tourist attraction described here [1], so perhaps it might be worth converting the speedy to a PROD to give this new user a bit more time to make a better case? Thanks Fæ (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Done. LordVetinari (talk) 13:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Liandra Dahl[edit]

Hello LordVetinari, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Liandra Dahl, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: does make claims of notability (awards) so is not a candidate for A7, take to AFD if you wish. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theumovie[edit]

Hi, thanks for changing the improvement tags on this article. Looking at the history I cannot understand what happened; I must have skipped mental tracks at that moment and jumped into BLP mode, good job you picked up on it. Cheers Fæ (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. The original text was a bit borderline so it was an easy mistake to make. LordVetinari (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution of South Australia[edit]

Hello again. I saw you created the above article and thought you might be interested in this little navbox. Perhaps the basic laws of the various territories could be added (assuming they have any such thing). -- LordVetinari (talk) 07:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

G'day! Thanks for that. I found it hard to believe that "South Australian Constitution" was still a red link, but your navbox provides the explanation!! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not too surprising. I remember a few years ago accidentally stumbling upon Queensland's new constitution. What the...! The govt had established a new one but there had been no mention of it in the media! No one I spoke to knew about it, nor even seemed to care!! LordVetinari (talk) 09:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Is there any reason not to take your navbox "live" by adding it to Constitution of South Australia? Pdfpdf (talk) 07:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If this is any indication, adding a template full of redlinks will split the heavens asunder and rain immortal wrath down upon thy wicked soul. If it was only one redlink (or a small handful, depending on template size) it wouldn't be a problem. In the meantime, we do have a handy list of redlinks from which to create articles. LordVetinari (talk) 09:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. On the one hand, I fear the "wrath of man wikieditors" much less than the "wrath of god/nature/etc." On the other, Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. I'll leave it in your capable hands. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Spark[edit]

Could you please revisit this discussion? Thanks, CTJF83 21:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 March 2011[edit]

Re: Abdul Hamid (politician)[edit]

Hello, ClaretAsh. You have new messages at Gogo Dodo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Speedy deletion declined: Durban Segnini Gallery[edit]

Hello LordVetinari. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Durban Segnini Gallery, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: known worldwide is an assertion of importance. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 21:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 March 2011[edit]

The Signpost: 4 April 2011[edit]

Gawler railway station, Adelaide[edit]

Gawler railway station, Adelaide has been deleted to allow page move per your request.Jusjih (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 April 2011[edit]

Local Government Areas of South Australia[edit]

Sorry mate, I don't want to be a pain, but I really don't like it that you have changed (for example) City of Charles Sturt to Charles Sturt, Town of Gawler to Gawler, and District Council of Ceduna to Ceduna. Those are NOT the names of the LGAs. I was wondering why you changed them thus? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion transferred to Talk:Local Government Areas of South Australia#Names. LordVetinari (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your questions. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Waite[edit]

Although I like your notable improvements to the layout and content of the Urrbrae, South Australia page, I believe some of your recent changes are not correct. (However, I may be wrong ... )

I am of the understanding that the Waite Research Precinct includes:

  • the University of Adelaide's Waite Campus (and its numerous components)
  • the Australian Wine Research Institute (AWRI)
  • the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics (ACPFG)
  • CSIRO research laboratories
  • SARDI Head Office
  • SARDI Plant Research Centre

Certainly, neither CSIRO nor SARDI are part of the University of Adelaide's Waite Campus.

You have removed mention of Urrbrae Agricultural High School, which although not part of the University, and not part of the suburb of Urrbrae, it is most certainly part of the Waite Research Precinct.

Please also review the redirects - certainly the Waite Research Precinct should point to Urrbrae, South Australia, not the University of Adelaide.

I was a bit puzzled about that. I looked for mention of the Waite Research Precinct but couldn't find that particular term in the sources given. In the meantime, I tried to keep to the existing sources, especially this link. I simply assumed that, like the others, AWRI, CSIRO and SARDI were also within the campus. The Adelaide UBD seemed to indicate as much but perhaps I misread it. Feel free to correct it.
Now that you have asked, I can't remember exactly where I got that term from. Certainly, it appears on notice boards and sign posts at the site. (If I used one,) I'll see if I can locate the online source I used. In the meantime: http://www.adelaide.edu.au/rb/arc/research_environment/institutes/waite.html, and click on the "Wine Innovation Cluster" link. The last paragraph newly displayed says: As well as the facilities within the cluster, the partners have access to other facilities and research organisations on the Waite Research Precinct, such as a new plant accelerator facility for phenomics, to be constructed in the near future.
As for the redirects, the use of the term Urrbrae House Historic Precinct on the university website led me to suspect that the similar term Waite Research Precinct was established by and for the university rather than any of the bodies governing the suburb.
I agree that it is highly likely that "any of the bodies governing the suburb" had nothing to do with the naming.
Basically, as the Waite Research Precinct is not exclusive to the suburb,
Agreed.
perhaps now is the time to put it on its own page. LordVetinari (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. I have to admit that personally, I'm more interested in finding info on, and writing about, the various historic homes. And Miramonte, too.

Regarding the removal of red links, have you read WP:RED?

Fixed. LordVetinari (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although the monastery of St Paul's Retreat is in Urrbrae, there is land on the other side of Cross Road which is also part of St Paul's Retreat.

My mistake. Fixed. LordVetinari (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you reread and reconsider the "Notable Locations within Urrbrae" section of this version of the page - note, however, that page may have some errors and ambiguities in it (most of which I think you have already fixed/resolved in your new page.

I wanted to bring the article away from a list format. LordVetinari (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was/is a good idea, and is an improvement to the article. I imagine that you've noticed that I'm over-inclined towards lists. With luck, your good habits will rub off on me.

And if you've got nothing else to do, you might want to have a look at Waite & Urrbrae.

"Someday" I'll review them and update them. They look a bit "overtaken by events".

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for the redirects to Peter Waite, I didn't feel they were necessary at the moment as his name in teh article already links to that page. Marking Urrbrae House as a link might mislead people into thinking there is a complete article on the subject. LordVetinari (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comments. "Someday" I'll create the separate article. (Unless somebody beats me to it ... )
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned above that your main interest in Urrbrae et al is in the historic homes. My purpose, however is to create a moderately uniform structure for suburbs articles and turn stubs into start-class articles. Neither of us appears to have a pressing interest in creating the articles mentioned above and I doubt either of us would be happy with a single paragraph article. In other words, I think a lot of water will flow under the bridge before either of us ever crosses it. Do you think, then, that some of the redirects noted above should be deleted to allow their names to appear as redlinks in Urrbrae and elsewhere? It'll encourage someone else to start the article, until that "someday" arrives when others are free to work on it. Thoughts? LordVetinari (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting proposal - I hadn't considered those aspects. At first glance, that sounds like it could be a good idea. Which links did you have in mind?
To be honest, I hadn't really thought it through that far. I certainly don't want to start a wholesale deletion of redirects, though.
Basically, the main one I had in mind was Urrbrae House. If the current amount of source material is any indication, then it's only a matter of time until someone creates an article on it. But, they may be less likely to if they think the information available is sufficient. Additionally, new users may not know how to overwrite a redirected page. The current Urrbrae House redirect links to Peter Waite but there is already a link in Urrbrae to Peter Waite. However, if you don't think the direct link to Peter Waite is sufficient, then perhaps the link to his philanthropic efforts (currently redirected from Urrbrae House) could be moved to the word "bequeathed" later in that section.
Perhaps Waite Research Precinct could also be a redlink. However, this would mean use of that link in other articles would have to be changed from [[Waite Research Institute]] to [[Urrbrae, South Australia#Waite Research Precinct|Waite Research Precinct]]. The new Waite Research Precinct redlink may then appear in a new opening paragraph in the appropriate section of the Urrbrae article.
LordVetinari (talk) 06:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. This is starting to sound more complicated than I expected. (Perhaps it might be easier for me to create the articles than to compose a sensible answer to your questions ;-) I'll give it some more thought and get back to you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was afraid I wouldn't communicate it well ;-)
No, no. You communicated it quite well.
If you like, I could blank this page and we could both pretend the discussion never took place? (Discussion? What discussion?!)
Lol! Hmmmm. That proposal has some merits!
Seriously, though, I think I'll step away from Urrbrae now and leave it all in your capable hands.
You are too polite! I'll emphasise that the articles look, and are, much improved thanks to you.
If the articles are created, they're created; if they're not, they're not. As I've remarked elsewhere on Wikpedia, there's no deadlines and, thus, no backlogs. Anyway, happy editing and till next time... LordVetinari (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And to you. No doubt our paths will cross again soon - as they say: "Adelaide is a small town". I've enjoyed collaborating with you. Regards, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A possible reservation might be that currently some of those links are pointing to relevant and useful stuff - if you make them red, then a casual passer-by will get no information at all, and a new-article-writer probably will not be aware of the "relevant and useful stuff" that already exists.
Example: Yes, the Waite Research Institute is built on land donated by Waite, but the building itself was able to be constructed because of substantial donations of cold hard cash from the Mortlocks. At the moment, that little gem "pops up" when you follow one of the redirect links. (Which, of course, I can't identify at the moment!) How a new author might otherwise come across that little gem I don't know. "Everybody" knows about the Mortlock Library, but how many people have ever heard of the Ranson Mortlock trust/bequest/(whatever it's correct name is)?
So there are equally valid arguments on both sides.
Being a wikipedia "inclusionist", my personal prejudice is to leave them blue. However, I am very aware that there are other Ps.O.V., and I could probably be convinced otherwise if there was a good reason.
My 2c worth. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 April 2011[edit]

Adelaide CBD[edit]

Howdy. I'd be interested to learn why you are systematically changing all occurrences of Adelaide city centre to Adelaide CBD. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. Basically, it's the same situation as when I confused you by inexplicably changing the ABS ref name in an article. This time, I'm going through the suburbs I've worked on and adding references, extra info and other stuff that I didn't think to add at the time due to not thinking of it until several suburbs later. When I made this template, I put the CBD option in the infobox as it takes up less space and is easier to read. I think I must have then simply copied and pasted the same wikilink into other places I needed it without thinking to change it. As I am using the same "template" for each suburb article I work on, it has repeated throughout. It probably isn't a major issue, though. "CBD" is a fairly universal term, after all, and it does lead to the same page.
I figured there'd be a simple answer.
The only issue I'd have is in situations referring to the whole "square mile" - the CBD is much less than a third of the city centre, and doesn't cover the south half of town. However, so far I haven't noticed any conflict.
Also, if we're going to get pedantic, the distances are from the Adelaide GPO - but as no page exists for the GPO, I think it would be wise to let that sleeping dog continue its nap. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what do you think about having Adelaide GPO as a redirect to Adelaide City Centre#GPO (and I'll add GPO and Town Hall sections to the article)? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just realised another point. I've occasionally found that the term Adelaide CBD can be more accurate to the context than Adelaide City Centre. Consider:
North Road connects the suburb to the Adelaide CBD.
  • Here, the CBD is understood to be a general area incorporating several points to which the road may lead.
"Main North Road connects the suburb to the Adelaide City Centre."
  • Here, the implication is that the road heads right into the centre of town! (Stay on Main North and you'll end up at Victoria Square.)
LordVetinari (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you think the CBD and the city centre are the same thing. They're not. The CBD is a subset of the city centre. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand the confusion here. I equate the term "city centre" with similar specific points such as town square, village common or piazza. As for CBD, I think I understand the term in the same manner as you; namely, as being that area with all the high-rise. Unfortunately, neither term appears to accurately portray the full suburb called Adelaide (the famous square mile). And, unfortunately, that is the area to which I (and some others, too, I'd expect) would be most likely to be referring when discussing subjects such as neighbouring suburbs or connecting roads. Perhaps there should be an article solely on the square mile (separate to the CBD) but I can imagine the hoohah already. As you say, let the dog lie. LordVetinari (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion was had a year or two ago, and came up with "Adelaide city centre" to mean the "square mile". It's interesting how unsuccessful the article is at conveying that!! Yes, by definition, a centre is a point, not an area - it's certainly not obvious that it's a square mile. Hmmm. Too hard for tonight - I'm off to bed. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about having Adelaide GPO as a redirect to Adelaide City Centre#GPO (and I'll add a GPO section to the article? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That works. If you can do that, I'll go through and adjust the articles I've already done. Thanks. LordVetinari (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Latin[edit]

P.S. Why the Latin? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's Greek to me... LordVetinari (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. That's right up there with: "My dog has no nose." "How does it smell?" "Terrible." Pdfpdf (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Groucho Marx? LordVetinari (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's where I remember it from. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the Latin is still in situ at Fulham, South Australia#Geography ... Pdfpdf (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that. I was wondering what you meant. All fixed now. Thank you. LordVetinari (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, ClaretAsh. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourism in Somalia.
Message added 13:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Holiday Plans[edit]

Hi LordVetinari, I just stumbled upon the Tourism in Somalia AfD. I noticed that you mentioned that you thought the topic was notable but should be deleted because the content seemed to be a hoax. I completely re-wrote the article and added a number of new sources. It's not quite featured article quality yet, but I don't think it qualifies as hoax/unverifiable anymore. Thanks, Qrsdogg (talk) 03:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was going to work on the article after the AfD had finished but I guess I no longer need to. A quick question, though. I came across this source which appeared to be useful. Do you think it could be a reliable surce, though. It is a blog, but note the credentials of the author. Anyway, thanks again for letting me know. LordVetinari (talk) 03:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published sources by recognized experts are kinda a grey area, I think. I recall reading through a discussion a while back, there was a big controversy in the aviation wikiproject on that subject.
In any case, I'm glad you indirectly brought this article to my attention. I always quote "AfD is not Cleanup", but bringing an article to AfD often is the best way to get it cleaned up. I guess with hoaxes it's really better to be safe than sorry. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bolivar[edit]

I'm sorry if I upset you. - Goodness gracious me no. Good heavens no! Not at all upset! I'm sorry if my wording implied I might be. No, no problem at all. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC) (Thanks for apologising, but there's nothing to apologise for. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

It's all good :-) LordVetinari (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 April 2011[edit]

The Signpost: 2 May 2011[edit]

The Suburban Warrior Barnstar[edit]

The Suburban Warrior Barnstar
To you LordVetinari, I award the Suburban Warrior Barnstar for your diligent and relentless pursuit of a set of wiki-pages that will, eventually, be informative. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And There was Light[edit]

It's probably not notable, but it was already deprodded once. Perhaps a selective merge to South Lancaster, Massachusetts might be an idea? Fences&Windows 18:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Obviously I missed the previous deprod. Unfortunately, I won't have time to merge the two articles as I have about 4 or 5 other projects on the go at the moment. Sorry. One question, though: why merge to South Lancaster rather than Atlantic Union College? Anyway, thanks for correcting my prod. LordVetinari (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 9 May 2011[edit]

The Signpost: 16 May 2011[edit]

This is quite pathetic[edit]

I ahve provided references, which is more than you bothered to do. Editing is not about being insulting to people who create articles, it's about making them better. I don't go around vandalising perfectly good articles with editorial notices, and if they need work I go and do it mysld. Having a look at help you can do at the Community portal - there's nearly 30,000 pages in need of wikification.

Oxford is a biggish city in England and I expect its pub guide has quite a following, so do not patronnise me with alf baked notions of how to edit. I've been doing the Wikipedia for years. I don't need to hide behind a fake name stolen from Terry Prachett and the real Lord Vetinari is far more amusing than you. Whay do you bother to contruibute to the W, when you're only interested in showing off tha pathetic fact that you're an editor and indulging in showing off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarannon103 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Suspected trolling LordVetinari (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As funny as the above rant is, I think it gets even funnier when seen in conjunction with my refutation: LordVetinari (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't waste too much space refuting that diatribe. Any editor can check and see why I removed so many of the references from Greaves' Rules; that the primary burden for providing references lies with the author (WP:BURDEN); that at no point have I insulted him; that I simply re-added an existing notice incorrectly removed; that an article creator is often the least qualified to judge whether an article is up to Wikipedia's standards; that consistently improving my knowledge of WP's policies and procedures does not make such knowledge "alf [sic] baked"; that someone who's been "doing" Wikipedia "for years" should have a far better knowledge of WP guidelines and should at least know that references are supposed to support the sentences to which they're appended; that my user history and talk page still reveals a clear link between my username and my real name; that the only way in which I have shown off is in my userspace which is both my prerogative and my sole reward as a volunteer; and that, moreover, a non-existent storybook character cannot, logically, be more amusing than an existent being such as myself.

The Signpost: 23 May 2011[edit]

Government of New South Wales[edit]

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For tireless, thankless, and lengthy slog, doing a fine job of fixing up the Government of New South Wales article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 May 2011[edit]

Change ringing[edit]

Not wishing to stir up an argument, but did you really mean peal under half muffling? In my, possibly limited, experience ringers rarely try anything special at a funeral or on Remembrance Sunday, well struck call changes being more appropriate. By the way, should there also be a one-liner about fully muffled ringing? It is the sort of logical next step that a non-ringer might ask. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I merged it from Half-muffled. Any errors were in that article. I should have mentioned this in my edit summary but forgot to do so, sorry. I've now noted it on the talk page. Anyway, feel free to change it, remove it or do what you you think is best. Happy editing and thanks for letting me know. LordVetinari (talk) 08:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio[edit]

Some food for thought for you:

  • One may not copyright facts.
  • Copying facts from somewhere else is not a copyvio. (If in doubt, add a citation. If in doubt, claim "fair use".)
  • However, against that one needs to balance the wiki-hysteria of the copyvio-nazis ...

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC) context[reply]

I'm in the middle of tidying Findon now. The copyvio material was a word for word copy from Manning. I'm already readding it but rewriting it. I wanted to remove the other stuff in separate edits else the edit summary would ahve been too long. LordVetinari (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The copyvio material was a "word for word" copy from Manning. - Yes, that's exactly my point - just 'coz it's a "word for word" copy does not necessarily mean it's a copyvio. However, as you allude, rewording it completely avoids any (and all) potential problems, perceived or otherwise! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I won't argue the point. I admit I only used the term as shorthand for unattributed, word-for-word copying. Perhaps I should have said plagiarism. Anyway, it's all fixed up now. LordVetinari (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I only used the term as shorthand for unattributed, word-for-word copying - Fair enough.
Perhaps I should have said plagiarism. - Maybe. But don't forget that we have this wonderful little template: [citation needed] ...
Anyway, it's all fixed up now. - Yep. As I said: rewording it completely avoids any (and all) potential problems, perceived or otherwise!
As usual, well done. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. LordVetinari (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Annie's Lane[edit]

Lack of 3rd-party refs questions notability - Hmmm. Quite clearly, you are NOT an alcoholic. (Yet?) Pdfpdf (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original phrasing of the lead + the phrasing of some other parts of the prose + the exclusive referencing of the company's own websites made it sound promotional; like a small winery trying to make themselves sound bigger. At this point, I don't believe it should be deleted so didn't prod it but tagged it for notability instead. It's not as threatening but gains the article a decent level of attention. I may get back to it later and deal with it myself. LordVetinari (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 June 2011[edit]

Learn to Read article[edit]

Thanks, I added a reason. Neutralitytalk 13:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for rollback[edit]

Hi LordVetinari. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 June 2011[edit]

Jesse Schmitt[edit]

I removed your prod, but on second thought, he's really only barely notable. Do you want to send this to AfD? Bearian (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this page via the notability backlog. All I want is to see the notability tag removed. I'll leave it up to AfD to decide whether the rest of the article is removed with it. Thanks for letting me know. LordVetinari 03:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of George and Helen Adie for deletion[edit]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. TerriersFan (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of Christians template[edit]

Hey, on {{Persecution of Christians}}, which Constantius are you referring to? I was trying to disambiguate it and none of them seemed to fit. --JaGatalk 05:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Constantius Chlorus, but I realise now that he shouldn't be in this list so have removed him. When I made this template, I followed links from the primary page Persecution of Christians, in this case Diocletianic Persecution (via Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire). If you have any further difficulties, you might be able to trace the answer that way. Or maybe just ask me again: it'll be easier and I'm always happy to help. Thank you for fixing my mistakes on the template. LordVetinari 09:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 June 2011[edit]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Users signed up for the Feedback Request Service[edit]

Category:Users signed up for the Feedback Request Service, which you created, has been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

German-style portal[edit]

On the portal talk page you discussed German-style portals. The new Conservatism portal has integrated the portal with the Conservatism project. See the Featured portal discussion here. – Lionel (talk) 03:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed. My main complaint with portals on the English WP is that they're almost invisible and don't clearly integrate (yet) with everything else. Now that it has been clearly demonstrated that portals can be integrated with WikiProjects, the next step, I think, is to make portal links an integral part of an article (such as categories or foreign language sister articles) rather than tiny optional tags hidden down near the See also section. Thank you for letting me know aboout this. LordVetinari 03:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 June 2011[edit]

The Signpost: 4 July 2011[edit]

Hydraulics[edit]

References have been added to the UK section, so there is no need to repeat yourself. The notice has that there are no references has therefore been removed. Why you couldn't do that yourself, I don't know. Why not try helping those who edit the Wikipedia rather than go round pompously issuing orders, my Lord.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.181.158 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply and I'm sorry you feel that way. The purpose of my comment on your talk page was to help you, as a new user, to become aware of and to understand Wikipedia's policies on verifiability of sources. As for repeating myself, I'm not quite sure what you mean, unless you're referring to the tag I added to Hydraulics. You may not yet be aware, but such tags usually add their attached article to hidden categories. In that way, affected articles may then be followed up on by people who, whether being more familiar with a topic or having better access to better or more resources, are able to offer more to an article than can be provided by the average user. Please don't feel that the addition of such tags are a personal comment on those who work on an article. In Wikipedia, we each help in our own way, whether it be editing in our own field of expertise or passing along articles that are more synchronous with others' fields. Again, I'm sorry you felt I was "pompously issuing orders". My intent, in conjunction with my welcome message, was only to help a new user. Incidentally, I urge you to add any new messages to the bottom of talk pages rather than the top. As well, please sign your messages by adding four tildes (the ~ symbol on your keyboard). Doing this will assist others to find any messages you leave and will avoid any unnecessary delay in replying. Happy editing. LordVetinari 08:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Template talk:Rescue[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Rescue. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, ClaretAsh. You have new messages at User talk:LordVetinari/Userboxes/Australian.
Message added 12:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please comment on Talk:Creative Commons licenses[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Creative Commons licenses. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany[edit]

I just removed the email address from the message you posted and deleted the revisions it was included in. I'll let someone familiar with the history of the situation handle the rest of your report.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ClaretAsh/Archive_1&oldid=1144621602"