User talk:Hebrides

See Help:Talk page#How to keep a two-way conversation readable. When you start a new message section here, I will respond to it here. Likewise, if I start a new message section on your Talk page, I'll watch your talk page for your response. This helps make sense of the conversation, both for us and for other readers.

Welcome!

Hello, Hebrides, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Bachrach44 17:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the welcome. I'll try to do my bit. Hope I don't make too many mitsakes. ;-) Hebrides 17:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Girgoriev

Hi there, Hebrides! Take a look at Popov, it'll surprise you even more :). When I create disambigs for people, I use dufferent encyclopedias to make sure these folks are notable, that's all. Good luck! KNewman 12:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Thumbsucker Tine Rasmussen Graphics software Thor Pedersen Niels Helveg Petersen III Records Melinda Gates Lars Løkke Rasmussen Geneva Reformed Seminary Jeff Davis (comedian) Jonas Rasmussen Marcopolo Jørgen Skafte Rasmussen The Business (film) Bushtarion Scott Rasmussen Per Nørgård Faroese literature Tom Rasmussen

Cleanup Purchasing power parity LDS Business College List of counties and unitary districts of England by population density Merge CP/M-86 Holmenkollen Multipactor effect Add Sources Windows "Vienna" Futurist architecture Blue-collar worker Wikify Joseph Martin Kraus Per Elofsson NSSO Expand Michael Tippett Carl Radle De Stijl

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hommage

You changed Hommage to Homage in Niels-Henning Ørsted Pedersen. I have reverted. The album is actually called Hommage. Please ensure that your valuable botting activities don't change it again. Thanks. Hebrides 09:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ta H. I've made note of it. Cheers, CmdrObot 22:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sid Vale Association

thanks for the contributions you made to my article

Periplus

Hey I seemed to have got into misunderstandings with wetman - all I meant was for the article to look better it needed a reference. I had looked at it because the publsher - Periplus Editions was in Singapore 20 years ago doing guide books about Indonesia - and I was trying to work out what might be needed for an article on the publisher - but the link was to tuttle who must have taken them over! oh well strange things happen. SatuSuro 15:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Nordic League Franz Simandl Perspective (cognitive) Crab canon Morten Lauridsen Pierre Henry Aaron Jay Kernis Michael Torke David Behrman Evan Ziporyn Regents Park, Gauteng HMS Tamar (1863) Julia Wolfe Regents Park, New South Wales Andrew Parrott Kurt Atterberg Nothing comes from nothing Taijin kyofusho Terminal (telecommunication)

Cleanup Kristi (name) Shefi Yishai U.S. Route 223 Merge Ezboard Annual percentage rate List of Portuguese composers Add Sources Hikikomori Dampfschiff General von Steuben Want Wikify Maulana Hali Barbara Ehrenreich Anthony Braxton Expand List of surrealistic pieces Pliocene Bass oboe

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 20:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Publishing company

It's because the publishing company is listed in Category:Historic preservation - which is predominantly about the historic preservation of buildings - perhaps there should be a new category for something like Category:Recorded music preservation? I can only apologise and remove the tag. kind regards--Mcginnly | Natter 15:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

TUSC token 9d01e76a2a0e58314e3e884269e16ce2

I am now owner of a TUSC account :)

Image copyright problem with Image:Em van hoai yeu anh.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Em van hoai yeu anh.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 12:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Em van hoai yeu anh.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Em van hoai yeu anh.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Rolling globe List of mosques Mandrillus WCWM Rock carvings at Eidefoss CFRA (AM) Operator assistance Michihiro Ikemizu Classic FM (South Africa) Anthony Gatto ASCII (company) Rock carvings at Møllerstufossen Johan Halvorsen Earth oven SEAL (cipher) Jonas Rasmussen Great Baddow Classic FM (Netherlands) Tajine

Cleanup Java Message Service Empresas Polar Gyromite Merge Ablutions (Episcopal) Hyderabad district (India) Janken Add Sources KEST Time 107.3 Ingrid Kristiansen Wikify WWMX (FM) Raoul Wallenberg Bahamut Lagoon Expand Ladybank University of Oslo Tecmo Super Bowl

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching graffiti

Thanks for punting those vandalized entries on the Ng page, made famous by Obama's half-sister. EJohn59 (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)EJohn59

Ulrik

On the Ulrik page you replaced {{given name}} with {{hndis}}. It states on the hndis documentation page "A page that lists all people with the given name "Jayson" should use {{given name}}." As this page doesnt have multiple people just called Ulrik, and only people with the given name Ulrik, then the given name template is surely the correct one? Tassedethe (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The "hndis" generates the text "This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same personal name" which is what the Ulrik page is. When I put "given name" on a page, it then gets tagged as uncategorised, but when I put "hndis" it doesn't. That's why I changed "given name" to "hndis". Is "personal name" the same as "given name"? Why does a page tagged "given name" get labelled as uncategorised? It's all rather confusing... -- Hebrides (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think 2 things are occuring here. There was a major edit to the given name template in January which I think has broken the categorization of given names. I am asking the editor to look at their edits. Also I think the hndis message is ambiguous, which is unfortunate for a disambiguation template! "Given name" seems unambiguous (synonymous with Christian name), "Surname" is unambiguous (synonymous with family name), but hndis should really refer to "full name". When it says "associated with the same personal name" that could mean "given name" (as you have thought) or "full name" (which is what I think is meant). "Full name" makes sense in the context of "given name" and "surname". If hndis also meant "given name" then there would be no need to have 2 separate templates. I think a wider discussion to clarify the hndis template is needed. Tassedethe (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the hndis page . Tassedethe (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone has fixed the template {{given name}} so you should be able to add it to appropriate pages and get the correct category. There is more info on name disambiguation pages at MOS:DABNAME. Thanks. Tassedethe (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sasagawa

Hello, you have a new message at Talk:Sasagawa--gordonrox24 (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

tedder (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That Bot

Hi, I previously blocked that bot for a few hours because I did not understand what positive contributions it is making. I see that you have raised more concerns on its Talk Page. Could you provide a few diffs so I can re-assess the situation? Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 20:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, I have checked the diffs myself and I have blocked this bot indefinitely. In my view it is deleting valid links. The owner's response to my initial enquiry was not very helpful. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 20:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Graham. I was getting more than a little frustrated after spending hours creating pages and carefully searching for interwiki links by hand, only to have them zapped by a bot. At last, a bit of peace. -- Hebrides (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome, I am still learning this admin stuff—I prefer to write about viruses—but I think I have made the right call in this case. Best wishes, Graham.Graham Colm ^Talk 21:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for this diff. I was beginning to feel like I was holding one lone candle... in the growing darkness of a very windy night... my flickering flame threatening to flutter out. My own arrival on Wikipedia was inside the heart of a raging storm, so I can feel a newcomer's angst. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

My feelings were similar when you appeared on the scene. I find your approach so refreshing and reassuring. Some editors seem to expect a new article to spring forth fully formed, referenced, conforming to every policy, with impeccable grammar, structure, spelling, expressed succinctly and displaying no point of view, bias or conflict of interest. However, I'm of the opinion that the great strength of a wiki is that it allows collaborative authoring, so that the germ of an idea can be worked up co-operatively, pooling everyone's skills to produce something outstanding. Unfortunately, some editors' skills seem limited to deleting stubs as soon as they appear, confounding this creative process. It's particularly unfortunate when the contributor is new to Wikipedia, and when the reasons for deletion are not totally rational. -- Hebrides (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. My own motto is "I'd rather fix the damn pipe than complain about having wet feet." Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

About Coronatus

Hi, I'm relatively new to wikipedia. I'm not 100% sure about the year of Coronatus' formation. So if you did kind of a translation to the German article, it must be more reliable. Thank you. Meanwhile, I'll try to search for reliable third-party sources. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookiki (talk • contribs) 18:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! I won't hesitate to ask you questions if I have. Once again, thank you. Cookiki (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Why explore space

Dear Hebrides, you're good at putting compilation page, such as Fahmi. Can you help put together a page with this title. If you do a Wiki search, you'll find referencing these 3 words in Edward Ng, Norman Horowitz, International Space Station, etc. So you can list these links, at least, and probably a few more. There is also a famous speech by Hawking in external link, http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/2209/full Please help create such page, and I'll add to it. I know if I create, it'll suffer speedy deletion. Thanks. --Joan kingston (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Joan_k

Joan, that's an interesting idea, but leaves me wondering why. Have you read the articles that Wikipedia already has? For example, Space advocacy, Space exploration, Space colonization, Space and survival, and many others linked from those, seem to provide a very comprehensive treatment of why we should explore space. I haven't quite understood why you think Wikipedia needs another article, or what's missing from the ones it already has. Hebrides (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I probably inadvertently misled you away from what was intended in my mind. Citing your page Fahmi as example, I was hoping for a page without prose, only a list of Wiki and external links, almost like a bunch of redirects, to guide users to the basic arguments for and against Space. This was prompted by a recent question on TV when the Hubble repair team broadcasted to schools. For students they’d use common language like “Why space”, instead of terms like advocacy and strategy. But even looking at the various pages you cited, it's hard to find the top 5 reasons for and top 5 against Space. When I searched, as a typical student would, with those 3 words, I did not get to tha pages you cited. Instead, I got to a bunch of apples, oranges and lemons. Also, when I heard of that famous speech by Hawking, I could not find it in WP. There was supposed to be another famous speech by Neil Tyson but hard to find. So the main intent of this “referencing page” is to lead students toward other WP links that may guide them for easier search. Hope this makes more sense.--Joan kingston (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Joan_k

I see. I'm not sure whether Wikipedia has a place for pages like this. It isn't a disambiguation page, or one of the "List of ..." pages. Please point me to other wikipedia pages similar to what you have in mind. I don't recall seeing any pages that simplify topics to the extent that they just give the top 5 reasons for and against something. -- Hebrides (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, what I envisioned would have been a page of annotated redirects somewhat similar in style to hawker, and Dyson, but of course different in contents. Here a student would find names of people, organizations or ideas for and against space. However, a second look into this topic among the WP pages finds it not feasible because the links seem to be mostly on the pros side leaving the cons side begging for info. I'd hope to hear some notable quote such as, "Why send all the money to Mars when we have so many problems on Planet Earth?" It's disappointing because I expect Wiki to be that bastion in neutrality. So much for an afternoon idea! Hope I didn’t waste too much of your time, but your opinion is valued.--Joan kingston (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Joan_k

PS to previous msg -- Just for the heck of it, I searched WP with the 3 words "Why Iraq War", and the first 20 results are so meaningful, that would make a good page of annotated redirects. But of course the non sequiter is that if a simple search would give the desired results, who needs a separate page?--Joan kingston (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Joan_k

I think we may have come to a conclusion on this one - that a suitable search can often produce you a screenful of links of the type you are envisaging. And if you think Wikipedia is biased, the great strength of the wiki idea is that you can help to rebalance it by writing the missing articles – from a neutral point of view, of course ;-) Hebrides (talk) 06:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Neil deGrasse Tyson page

Dear WP Admin, I see you just went into some clean up of this page. I've been frustrated by one thing, which you may be able to help. This page has by far the most numbers of refs & citations, and yet some person kept tagging it as not enough. If one looks at the 4 external refs, one can write a beautiful life story of Tyson. But I don't understand what the hack he/she wants. I can put those refs linked to every paragraph, because the vitae given describe his entire life but multi-links would be silly. Can you give some advice. Tyson is the modern Sagan, very famous in the US. If some day his people are mad enough to withdraw his entry from WP, it's your loss, not his. Please advise. --EJohn59 (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)EJohn (perplexed)

Hello and thanks for your message. I'm not a "WP Admin" (but flattered to be addressed as such!), but just a humble editor; but I've had a good look at the page, and also spent some time formatting some of the references better.

These "improve" type banners have a standard wording, which does not always exactly address the problem. It seems in this case that the emphasis should be on the bit that says, "by adding reliable sources". There is a lot of information at Wikipedia:Reliable sources about the kind of reliable source that Wikipedia aims for. So it's not the quantity of citations that is being questioned here, but their quality, and how much of the factual information in the article is covered by them.

In a case like this, I don't think for a minute that anyone is questioning Neil deGrasse Tyson's notability, or proposing deleting the page. But it would be better to back up the facts about him by citing reliable third-party sources than by citing material published by him or by organisations he is associated with.

Let's take a ridiculous imaginary example. Suppose, for example, I wanted to write an article about somebody who was chairman of the International Underwater Knitting Association (IUKA). I could probably find lots of information about him on the IUKA website and on his own website, find his videos on Youtube, his contributions to wikis, forums, personal networking sites, etc, etc. What's more, I might have written a thesis on underwater knitting, and I could cite that. But these would be of little use from Wikipedia's point of view. What would rescue the article would be a reference to substantial articles in, for example, the London Times, the Washington Post, the BBC, a well-known university text book, etc. There's more detail about all of this on Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources.

So my conclusions on looking at the Neil deGrasse Tyson article were that it doesn't need more references, but that the emphasis needs to be on the high quality references - at the moment the Time and New York Times references are not very noticeable. I would be tempted to remove some of the references to his own website, and to Youtube videos, and to aim for a higher density of what Wikipedia calls "reliable third-party sources". A few reliable sources that together support most of the factual material in the article would be much better.

Note, by the way, that "reliable" is used here in a technical sense - there is no question as to whether what this man writes about himself is true or whether you can rely on it - but Wikipedia aspires to achieving a more rigorous level of reliability than you get simply by believing what people write or say about themselves, or what their friends say about them.

Hope that makes some sense. Best regards and thanks for your efforts to improve Wikipedia. Hebrides (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Howdy, thank you for taking the time to provide such detailed explanation. I’m impressed that you have been going around cleaning up a great variety of pages, thus prompting my question to you. OK, I understand the need for 3rd party sources, and I tip my hat to your highlighting those from Time, NY Times and Space Foundation. The misleading aspect of the tag was to ask for adding more, as if 25 were not enough. But there is still one grey area puzzle that you may be able to enlighten. When we look at pages of typical professors, we rely heavily on their institutions’ official CV as primary sources. After all, those are probably most complete and current. We readers typically place the trust in the notability of the institutions, such as Oxford and Harvard. If the institution were some unknown, then we have great reservations. In some sense Oxford and Harvard have passed many public scrutinizing and rigorous tests. I suspect that we may need to tag most professors if we don’t trust their institutional web pages. Does this rule of thumb apply in this case, that is, in the US, Hayden is known as the Harvard of Planetariums. Of course, that transfers the burden to the Hayden page.

But meanwhile, let me dig up a few more 3rd party sources, such as Discovery, PBS, Cosmos, IAF,...--EJohn59 (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)EJohn

Do given name pages dont need a disamb tag?

Hi Hebrides, Do the given name pages that you're creating not need a {{disamb}} tag to be added since they have the given names tag? Thanks Lilaac (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me :)

The answer is No, they don't. Basically, MOS:DABNAME makes it clear: I quote:

"Pages only listing persons with a certain given name or surname (unless they are very frequently referred to by that name alone) are not disambiguation pages, and this Manual of Style does not apply to them. In such cases, do not use {{disambig}} or {{hndis}}, but {{given name}} or {{surname}} instead."

Discussions on this have been long and convoluted, and give rise to differences between different language wikipedias. If you're interested there's a recent discussion at MediaWiki talk:Disambiguationspage#Re-add_.7B.7Bsurname.7D.7D. Cheers - Hebrides (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

THanks for the letting me know, I was adding disamb tags behind you like a dumbo, let me go undo them :-( ... Lilaac (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL :) I'd no idea I was being followed. It is confusing and I made all sorts of mistakes putting the wrong tag on when I first started making this type of page - and people kindly corrected me. Hebrides (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphan tags on {{surname}} pages

This conversation was previously alternately here and on User talk:Postcard Cathy; it has been interleaved to make it into a readable discussion, and the subsequent comments from NSH001 have been included. It starts with a comment from me to Postcard Cathy that I placed on her talk page...

Hi, I'm confused. You've been putting orphan tags on pages marked with the {{surname}} tag - see Adolfas, Adamou, Blignaut and Dobrovský.

The {{surname}} tag produces text which says, "If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change that link to point directly to the intended article." The orphan tage produces text which says, "Please introduce links to this page from other articles related to it." It seems strange to have both appearing on the same article.

Historically, {{surname}} pages have never been tagged as orphans - it just doesn't make any sense to do so. Something seems to have gone awry in the classification of these pages, stemming from the fact that English Wikipedia (unlike all other languages) does not technically classify {{surname}} and {{given name}} pages as disambiguation pages.

How should we tackle this to prevent the many hundreds of {{surname}} and {{given name}} pages being given a totally inappropriate orphan tag? Hebrides (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not an expert on either orphans or names. The only thing I can think of, other than contacting someone who knows more than I do on orphans, is to make certain pages disamb articles. Some articles on names are simply disamb articles. Others are more specific, giving things like origins of the name and other historical/factual info. All I know is that as is, they keep popping up as orphaned pages needing tags. If I don't tag them, a bot will. So it is stupid to revert my edits. If there is some sort of forum where you can ask people who know more about orphans, I suggest posting it there. Postcard Cathy (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the strange thing - bots simply don't tag these pages as orphans. What's more, I just tried AWB on the pages - it's very good at checking out orphans and adding the orphan tag - but it doesn't tag these pages. I've created hundreds of {{surname}} pages, and you're the only editor as far as I can remember who has ever put an orphan tag on them. -- Hebrides (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You are talking to the wrong person. I really don't know what to tell you. I just know there is a bot that categorizes them as orphaned articles needing orphan tags. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Orphan#Suggestions_for_how_to_de-orphan_an_article Both Lonelypages and Untagged Orphans are finding them and putting them on their lists. Please discuss it with them. All I know is that they are showing up as meeting the criteria for orphan tags. And as I said in my orphan summaries, as long as they show up there, I will tag them as orphans. How to NOT get them listed as needing a tag is something I know nothing about.Postcard Cathy (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Orphan#Suggestions_for_how_to_de-orphan_an_article, which I've checked out. I then read the talk page for that article, and found that it clearly states that adding orphan tags to surname pages is pointless. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Orphan#Surname_pages, which then links to a further discussion. In view of this, would you like to remove those orphan tags you inserted, or would you like me to do it? Sorry about this - it's always a bit discouraging when you find that some work you've done has to be undone - but hey that's life! Btw I had a look at your "user contributions" and you do soooo much brilliant hard work for WP - you put me to shame! Cheers (and admiration) -- Hebrides (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't meant to sound cranky or rude but I was so done with this a long time ago. As long as they appear on the lists of articles to be tagged, I will tag them because as I understand it, if I don't then a bot will. So do as you want. The issue as I see it is how not to be listed by those tools. Until the tools don't list them anymore, they will be tagged. Please don't follow up with me again on this topic (but feel free to talk with me on others! :P) since I feel I am repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating..... Postcard Cathy (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me quote from Wikipedia_talk:Orphan#Surname_pages:

Is there any point in surname pages being labelled "Orphan"? It just clutters the page unnecessarily. There are unlikely to be any useful links to such a page - it serves a role similar to a disambiguation page, and may or may not also have information about the surname as a word - and even in this function there are not likely to be links to it, though it will be valuable to people who use "Go" or "Search" in entering WP to find out about the name. For a recent example, see Abu Taleb, where an orphan tag has been added, removed, replaced. PamD (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I agree. Most surname pages are disambiguation pages & the orphan criteria doesn't apply. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now raised this issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Orphanage#.7B.7Bsurname.7D.7D_pages and suggest that any further responses should go there - not so much "Forum-shopping" as an attempt to find the best place to discuss my concerns. PamD (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they should be called set indices. -- œ^™ 00:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I recommend you read Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Orphanage#.7B.7Bsurname.7D.7D_pages as it makes clear that the orphan criteria will very soon be changed since surname pages are currently wrongly classified as orphans. It's going to change very soon. Don't waste your time tagging them. It will all have to be undone. BTW I actually thought you'd be pleased that I was saving you from wasting your time - please don't get irritated. -- Hebrides (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Cathy, the same applies to {{given name}} pages such as Chrissie. A moment's reflection shows that adding orphan tags to such pages is pointless. I suggest you ask for the toolserver script to be amended so that it doesn't flag surname and given name pages, since they are just variants of dab pages. Good luck -- NSH001 (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't an issue for me but it seems to be an issue for you, Hebrides and others. I threw out talking to the toolserver editor for those of you that have an issue with it. It is a Mexican standoff. The rules say if it is on that list, it should be tagged. I am going to tag it. If you feel it shouldn't be tag, do what you feel you should do to make sure it doesn't end up on the list of articles to be tagged. Now, this really is my final time discussing this topic. I have repeated myself too many times. If you and anyone else don't want names to be tagged as orphans, do what YOU feel you need to do to make sure it doesn't end up on a list of articles to be tagged. Postcard Cathy (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Cathy, you say you're a member of Mensa on your user page, so this surely shouldn't be difficult for you to see. Surely I don't need to explain the obvious to you? The Chrissie article has been around for 8 months, and no bot has attempted to tag it in that period (not surprising, of course). The correct course of action is to suggest to the author of the toolserver script that he/she change it to exclude surname and given name pages (they can easily be identified by their categories). Please don't waste the time of other editors by making pointless changes. Thanks, and good luck again. --NSH001 (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

American Esperantist

I'm a bit confused as to why you removed the {{deadend}} tag from American Esperantist in this edit. You didn't introduce any blue links into the article, so it's still a deadend article. Care to enlighten me?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for spotting that. How strange. My fault. I was using AWB to step through a few hundred pages this morning; and I find AWB is usually very good at adding tags (for orphans, uncategorised, wikify, etc) when needed, and occasionally removing tags that are no longer needed. Obviously I didn't look carefully enough at its suggestion on this page, and I'm not sure why it suggested removing the deadend tag when adding an orphan tag. I must watch carefully for that in future, and make sure I check whether the link(s) on the page are redlinks (it's displayed in edit mode, so there's no visual clue when a link is red). I've repaired it, so it now has both a deadend and orphan tag. Sorry about that -- Hebrides (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem -- I just wanted to check that I hadn't lost my marbles. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sturge

Unprotected at your request. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I just tried to create it. It's still protected, and won't let me create... Hebrides (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Try it again; haven't done one of these in a while. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it worked this time. Thanks. Hebrides (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Helen Gloag

I gave the article a bit of expansion and some sourcing. If the nominator had followed even the least of WP:BEFORE, it would have never been tossed into AfD. If the intention was to force improvement, he misused the process. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

She's been saved. Improvements impressed the speedy closer. Nomination was by a banned user. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ausbuy

Please consider (Orphan): There are two external links, in particular referring to two books, and I think this is might be enough of my contribution to the article Ausbuy. Greetings,--Fox1942 (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I looked at the history of the Ausbuy page, and must apologise for appearing to be doing battle over the orphan tag - which is not the case. When I use the wikibrowser called AWB, it suggests changes to a page, which I can either accept or reject - and I seem to have visited this Ausbuy page twice recently and each time it suggested an Orphan tag.

However, the orphan tag is in fact correct in this case. Orphan means that it does not have enough other wikipedia articles linking to it - too few articles mention Ausbuy with a link to the article. If you go to the Ausbuy page, click on "What links here" on the left, and you'll see it's just a handful of user pages - no proper articles link to it. This makes it an orphan.

To improve the page, it needs both incoming links and also links to other related pages on wikipedia. It also needs more inline references.

It also seems to repeat itself needlessly, and the later part is not written as an objective encyclopaedia article, but more like a persuasive advertisement written for Australians to read.

Hope that helps. -- Hebrides (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind help. Within the next few weeks I will try to improve the article in the sense you have adviced me. Greetings, --Fox1942 (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Good to have you on board :) Hebrides (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate very much your kind help to improve the article - I learnt a lot to write much more better articles in future in en.Wikipedia! Best Greetings from the Australian Tropics at the South Pacific.--Fox1942 (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I have implemented some aspects of moral suasion.--Fox1942 (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You also deleted the orphan tag!? Articles are orphans if they don't have other articles linking to them – strictly it remains an orphan until it has three articles linking to it (and that doesn't include list pages, disambiguation pages, user pages, etc). If you view the Ausbuy page and then click "What links here" on the left, you'll see that it is still technically an orphan, so you ought to put the tag back. It needs some links to it from other pages, but I don't think any other WP articles refer to Ausbuy yet. -- Hebrides (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, sorry to delete the orphan tag, but then you might put the orphan tag back - I simply give up, because most likely this article hardly will meet the technical criteria of deleting an orphan tag. So it be. If you do not think this article is worth to be in Wikipedia, then we should consider to cancel it? Nevertheless I thank you for your kind help to "fix" this article. Best greetings from Australia, --Fox1942 (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have put the orphan tag back. --Fox1942 (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we may be confusing two things here: whether an article should exist; and whether an article has room for improvement. Tags like {{orphan}}, {{wikify}}, {{Primarysources}}, {{Unreferenced}}, etc., are part of the normal development of an article. What happens is that these tags not only give a message on screen when you view the article, but also add the article to a list of articles that need a certain type of improvement. There are communities of wikipedia editors who specialise in certain types of editing. See, for example, the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Orphanage – and the long list of dedicated "de-orphaners" further down the page. Also, readers of an article who may know it is related to other subject areas may see the orphan tag and it might prompt them to spend a few minutes creating links to the article from other articles they know. It's all part of the power of collaborative authoring… -- Hebrides (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that you may be thinking that the message "This article is an orphan, as few or no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from other articles related to it." is addressed to you in particular. It's not. It's actually a message to everybody. I sometimes tag articles I've worked on, as a way of inviting other people to do the bits I haven't managed to do. Hope that might help. -- Hebrides (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Now I understand much more the intention of an Orphan Tag. I appreciate very much your kind help and clarification! --Fox1942 (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

R. M. Engelhardt

You did some nice work there. I have myself done some deep searching and feel it is just a sliver on the wrong side of guideline notability. HOWEVER... his group Albany Poets does seem to tweak on the happy side of notability [1], and if there were on article on them, a few paragraphs about their founder would fit in quite nicely. I opined a userfication at the AfD based upon the search for the group and his appeal to an admin. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC).

Wow, you're fast!

Do you ever sleep? ;-) Thanks for fixing that H S Seung article. By now you might have noticed my special affinity for Harvard & MIT, though I was not good enough to study there! While I have your attention, may I ask you to look at N C Yeh, and advise why hers is a stub, vs. non-stub for H S Seung? Just curious, no big deal. --EJohn59 (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)EJohn

I do sleep, but here in UK the sun rises and sets at the wrong times, so we have to sleep and wake at the wrong times too ;-)

I'm not an expert on "stubness", so I looked up the stub question on WP:STUB, which says, "A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information." It also says, "There is no set size at which an article stops being a stub."

Based on that, I wouldn't regard either of these articles as a stub. What do you think? -- Hebrides (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your usual enlightening clarification. I'll alert Kgwu who created the Yeh article, if he wants to take away the stub status. Personally, I like that Einstein picture on the stub page, especially for a female scientist. --EJohn59 (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)EJohn

ATCvet code QI05

Hi Hebrides! Please do not unlink section headers in ATC code lists like ATCvet code QI05. This is the only convenient place in these lists to link to related articles. Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry – I was following MOS:HEAD. Where are exceptions documented? -- Hebrides (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hebrides, I think you're right -- the article in question looks to me to be pretty far off MOS. I'd suggest replacing the header link with a {{seealso}} template immediately below the header. -Pete (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this isn't documented anywhere, I was just following the practice of pages like ATC code C01. I agree that this doesn't conform with MOS; but before moving the links to {{seealso}}, I'd place the issue at WT:PHARM. There are about 100 pages like that, and we should keep things consistent. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

AWB

Hebrides, thanks for all your automated edits -- but you may want to reconsider some of them. I haven't looked through them in detail, so maybe this is just a one-time issue -- but this edit isn't really helpful, and if you're doing a lot like that, I'd say it's a bit counterproductive (cluttering edit histories with unneeded edits, setting a poor example for new users, etc.) There's no policy about whether category tags should go above or below stub tags; When you find an order you disagree with, the best thing to do is leave it as-is. -Pete (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Pete, for pointing that out. A few of my edits are like that. Sometimes for a bit of relaxation I fire up AWB, load in 100 pages at random, then run through them, checking that AWB isn't suggesting anything ridiculous or wrong before I approve the suggested changes. I must admit that I don't always calculate the benefits of a suggested change against the cluttering aspect you highlighted; many suggested changes are applying MOS aspects that I haven't studied in detail. However, I do often press the Ignore button when the suggested edit simply re-orders the tags with no effect on the appearance of the page, and I'll try to make a point of doing that more rigorously.

Incidentally, I notice that a recent update to AWB started putting DEFAULTSORT tags onto pages with lowercase words in the title, like this – I guess from this that the sorting algorithm on Category pages is case sensitive, though I haven't investigated. These edits seem to be creating a lot of clutter, and I've had some of them reverted (probably by editors who didn't notice the uppercase letter). I'd value your opinion as to whether these are worthwhile or not.

Thanks for getting in touch. -- Hebrides (talk) 07:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I really don't think the occasional edit like the one mentioned above is a big deal, just thought I'd point it out in case you were on some campaign to do thousands of 'em :) As for DEFAULTSORT, I can't really imagine where it would be helpful outside of proper names -- if AWB is smart enough to distinguish humans with Western-ish names, that seems like a useful feature. But as for what you're describing, I'm not sure what the purpose could possibly be...but, I'm not really an expert on that stuff, maybe there's something I'm unaware of? -Pete (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Special Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		for your kind message at User talk:Quentinwllcs. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

My first ever barnstar! Thanks – that's very special – you really made my day :))) -- Hebrides (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you were very kind to Quentin — kinder than I have been. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Thanks for cleaning up the article. I did not have the energy to do it myself. Eventually it will have to be rewritten to include information from the newspaper stories. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Averda dead end no longer dead?

I tried to clean up Averda a little bit. I was wondering if you wanted to take a look and see if it is OK to remove the 'dead end' tag and uncategorizzed tag &c. Thank you Decora (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right – you've done some good work on this article. I've removed the deadend and wikify tags (and added a couple of references) – but I left the orphan tag because there don't seem to be any articles that link to it. I also left the refimprove in view of the fact that {{citation-needed}} still occurs three times. Cheers -- Hebrides (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Esters

What issues do you have with this article? It seems good to me. --BwB (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello BWB, and thanks for your message, which has left me slightly puzzled. I've done a couple of edits to Alexander Esters: this one on 20 June, which just standardised a few capital letters ("Friday", "November", etc); and this one on July 1, which did some minor tidying, capital letters (again!), and changed a few spaces to non-breaking spaces. I wasn't aware that either of these edits implied that I had "issues" with the article. In fact, the article seems to be coming on quite well. Please explain… -- Hebrides (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Tireless contributor

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		. . . for extraordinary work in creating articles! GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Move these barnstars to your User Page if you feel like it. Cheers! GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I add my applause to well-deserved accolade! You have been especially helpful to clumsy editors like me.--EJohn59 (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)EJohn

re: Etienne Aigner

Thanks! Well, you're more than welcome to delete them as you see fit. I have no issues with that at all. I was hoping one of these days to do at least the Indonesian and Javanese versions, if not add to the German- but the "to do" lists just seem to pile up! As far as I know, only the German wiki version exists. You have caught me out bit here, I must admit I did cheat by.. err.. "borrowing" the Hugo Boss article and amending it as needed- as the two are surprisingly similar in many ways. Thanks, and amend away with my blessings!Starstylers (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

'Country'

Hi, Hebrides. I've just come across the recently created - and soon to be deleted! - category:Country. Having removed the sole category which had been wrongly placed there by its creator, it now only contains your sandbox. Somewhere in the text you must have [[Category:Country]] for some reason. I'd like to get the category speedily deleted but need it to be emptied first. Could you please check your page and remove the category (or if you need it as text only place a colon before it, thus - [[:Category:Country]] so it doesn't put your page in that category? Many thanks. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I've removed it. It was in an experimentation section that I copied from somewhere and was trying out. I usually remember to deactivate category lines (eg if I userify a page to work on it) to prevent a sandbox appearing in the category, but this one slipped through the net! Cheers -- Hebrides (talk) 07:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Didn't want to be cheeky and do it myself, even if I'd had the time to find it! Thanks again, Enaidmawr (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sfânta Elena

Hi Hebrides. Thanks a lot for your help there. I appreciate it. Have a nice day! --Vejvančický (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you, and to find out I've done something right! Keep up the good work. -- Hebrides (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

...a nice surprise in my watchlist! It's a rare phenomenon here on Wikipedia! Thanks again, Hebrides! :)) --Vejvančický (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

YHANK YOUUUU!!!!

Henmor (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Thank you very match for helping me .... I added the references that you suggested!! if it's possible can you check it one more time.. I have searched more ref.. if i'll find i will ad more...and now how we can delete that request? can you do that? conflict of interest-i don't understand what can i do with this request  ??? :((( can you help please....Henmor (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Henmor (talk) 10:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC) I just wonted to thank you!!!!!

I replied on your talk page :) Hebrides (talk) 06:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for copy editing here[2]. I meant to calculate the "x years" but "several" does just as well. Best, DVD 07:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Easy mistake to make – I've done it at least x times myself. It's an interesting and well-written article – thanks for all your hard work on WP. Cheers, Hebrides (talk) 06:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Creangă

Oh, God, yes. Thank you for that. Dahn (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Mistakes are weird. When you read them yourself, the brain seems to have an autocorrect mechanism, and you read what you meant to write – that’s what makes collaborative writing on WP so potentially powerful :) Cheers – Hebrides (talk) 06:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Name pages

Hi, please note that articles about names are not disambiguation pages, so more than one link per line is permitted on them. See MOS:DABNAME which explains the difference.

If you are interested in articles about names, please join WP:WikiProject Anthroponymy! - Fayenatic (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Fayenatic, and thanks for dropping by. I just had a look at your userpage and I seem to have quite a bit in common with you :)

My reference to MOS in my Edit Summary was wrong – I must admit – thanks for pointing that out :) – English wikipedia is really peculiar – all the other language WPs that I edit classify pages that are lists of shared surnames or given names as disambiguation pages, but English WP has the {{surname}} and {{given name}} tags, which are not disambiguation pages but for many purposes are treated as such. Take, for example, the compromise that had to be reached in adding a section at the bottom of MediaWiki:Disambiguationspage because zealous bots were removing interwiki links between English name pages and non-English disambiguation pages. Then there was a really long discussion about name pages getting classified as orphans, resulting in this change in June this year.

Returning to the question under discussion, although my Edit Summary was factually wrong, I somehow have the feeling that this may be another area where pages that are simply bulleted lists of names can learn from the disambiguation rules – what I mean is that the reasoning behind sticking to one link per line on a disambiguation page is often valid reasoning when applied to surname or given name pages. Certainly I only put one link per line when I create them (I've created a few hundred), and I tend to stick to a disambiguation ‘look and feel’ because I think that the disambiguation format is tried and tested, clear, functional and well thought out.

Is there any good reason to allow multiple links per line on surname or given name pages?

Best regards, Hebrides (talk) 07:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, please excuse the delay in replying. If those bots have quit cutting links between English name pages and other disam/name pages, I'm very glad to hear it!

As for multiple links: name pages should be articles, not just lists. Good ones have information on the origin, history, distribution, popularity, variants etc. A disam page is an informatively-structured index, which has strict style rules, but a name article can be more flexible. If a person is listed with an unusual profession/specialism/etc, I might want to click directly on the link to that subject without having first to navigate to the article on the person. That's my 2p worth, anyway! Fayenatic (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, some name pages are encyclopaedic articles about the name, others simply have the same indexing function as disambiguation pages, and there seems to be something of a continuum in between.

BTW, have you seen the excellent way they do name pages in Icelandic WP? I really like it. See, for example, is:Einar to see what I mean (or others in the category is:Flokkur:Íslensk karlmannsnöfn). Hebrides (talk) 09:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ani Batikian

Good work! Well done. Teapotgeorge^Talk 21:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) Hebrides (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

A. M. Nair

Hi, Hebrides. A. M. Nair founded the restaurant in 1949. And now his son G. M. Nair is the master. The restaurant is very famous as authentic Indian food. Ok? See [3]--Bukubku (talk) 08:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. I've replaced the link with a little more explanatory text so that nobody else makes the same mistake as I did! Best regards, Hebrides (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. He also published his autobiography book in Japan.[4] And his son published book about curry.[5] They are famous.--Bukubku (talk) 08:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible vandalism on Einstein

Dear Hebrides, please take a look at Albert Einstein Medal. When my friend did a Google search and got to this page, she was shocked. It seems like the anonymous edit 2 revisions ago did the vandalism. I'd undo the last 2 edits, but one seemed to be done by a bot. So, I thought I'd better double check with an expert. Or should we report to an admin? --EJohn59 (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)EJ