User talk:WWGB/Archive 6

Too soon, me thinks

"Please note that, by consensus, expiring months are not collapsed until seven days of the new month have elapsed".

However, best wishes for the New Year and all that. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Derek, the one week's period of grace works OK for month to month transitions, but it is nigh impossible to make it work for year to year transitions. As soon as Recent deaths was redirected to Deaths in 2011, which happened here then the rest was inevitable. We could never have had Deaths in January 2011 sitting atop Deaths in December 2010. Keeping the December list "open" rather than collapsed therefore served no purpose, as readers can still see December deaths readily. It will just no longer be a redirect from Recent deaths. Regards, WWGB (talk) 13:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Aaaah - I see. I thought it was odd, as you are such a good guardian of this page. Cheers - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Not vandalism

Just wanted to see a source. It's no vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.17.246 (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You wanted evidence that Sammy Davis Jr was a singer? Oh, right ... WWGB (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

2006 in Deaths

The article could go with a HUGE cleanup. Redlinks are everywhere. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 9:55 20 January 2011 (UTC)

re He-Man69 (talk · contribs)

Hi WWGB,
I too was interested in Matthew L. Utley "prominent computer scientist"?. Concur on "No reliable independent references, notability not established " but I was actually tagging the page as {{Hoax}} when we edit conflicted at the article and the editors talk page! >:-/ The guy just doesn't exist! (or has covered his prominence well!) I have also tagged 'He-Man69's first article Valerie Randle (who does exist), as a partial copyright violation. Just FYI.
Keep up the good work, esp. at Recent deaths {{=)|grin} }- 220.101 talk^\Contribs 07:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Unused images

Yes, there's a place: WP:FFD. Nyttend (talk) 07:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Cristino Nicolaides on Deaths of 2011

He was a criminal, why did you delete that? He was under house arrest at the time of death. It is known that he is responsible of appropriating children and also he was charged with 25 years for abductions and disappearances of people during the last argentine dictatorship. What else do you need to hold "criminal" there?--Andres arg (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

BZorthian

I know if I want an article for the late Mr. Zorthian, I should be willing to write it. But on the other hand, your "one source is sufficient" deletion of some good source-tracking that I did, also seems somehow wrong. I read or at least scanned each source I added, and found different info in each; one I think was a repeat but I've found that sometimes the AP stories get dropped from some websites so it's not bad to have a backup.

I see you are praised for your work in this area and this was my first visit to a "Recent deaths" articles. I liked it. I came at it after I stumbled on one of the sources on BZorthian and came to Wiki to see if there was an article. No article, but a place to note the source. Well, some more work later, nothing now to show for it. I know one source is adequate to assure he's a recent death. The incremental ones tell more about him, though. I see from other recent edits you have notability standards; more sources back up his notability. I see you or someone also signaled interest in having an article written; it was red-linked, if that's the proper term. Those both seem reasons to keep the legwork I did in the piece. Any further thought? Swliv (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It only requires one reference at Recent deaths to confirm that the subject has died. That is not the place to establish notability or accumulate references. It only takes a few minutes to write a stub article for Barry Zorthian which both establishes notability and allows for multiple relevant links to be recorded. As things stand at the moment, Zorthian's redlink at Deaths in December 2010#30 will be deleted on 30 January, whether it has one reference or many. Regards, WWGB (talk) 04:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your patient explanations. I took some time today to start the Zorthian article and restore it to the Deaths page. It's not a totally polished article but I think it gets the ball rolling in the right direction. Swliv (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Re How Dare You (TV series)

Just to let you know:

I deleted Clive webb as a copyvio (as you would expect)

In the case of How Dare You (TV series), you notified the original creator User:Allenjeremy, however, the copyvio was introduced later. I reverted the article back to the version before the addition of the copyvio material (It isn't much of an article, but at least the copyvio is gone.)--SPhilbrickT 14:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrong link?

The link you provided as a source for here is from May 2010...--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip ... my bad! WWGB (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

2010 Panama City school board shootings GA nomination

You seem like a significant contributor to 2010 Panama City school board shootings, which is why I'm coming to you for help. I nominated the article as a 'Good Article' and it was reviewed by User:Cptnono, who cited a few small stylistic and formatical problems that needed to be addressed before it could become a good article. However, he left one somewhat troubling statement at the end of the review:

A good article must be broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

• Fail. It mentions some aspects that were interesting to learn about but much more is desired to hit this benchmark. This one of the primary reasons I am failing this article.

Do you know what makes the article not "broad in its coverage," or what I can add to it that will "hit this benchmark." Based on the sources I've found, we've pretty much covered the important details. Any advice would be appreciated. --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 23:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps interested

Hi, you might be interested in checking out this article that I suggested and ErrantX started. I have seen your edits on crime articles and I like them, and I think you perhaps could help with this article too if you feel like it. Schenecker double murders.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Giridharilal Kedia article repost

The article was repost because earlier the artical was deleted due to (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://lionsdist322c2.org/website/about-us/history/pdgs-of-district-322-c2.htm). & now I have taken permission from the copyright holder to post it to wikipedia. And i have already send the email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. And i request you to not to delete the article. Please remove the criteria for speedy deletion. Odisha1(talk) 12:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I am referring to the deletion debate because the subject is not notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giridharilal Kedia. WWGB (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

But now it is notable, Because now Giridharilal is a part of Indian History.Odisha1 (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

So please remove the criteria for speedy deletion...Odisha1 (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No. I will let an admin decide this matter. WWGB (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This books exists. The book ISBN:9788184099836, For any more proof you can contact the publisher jbdpress01@gmail.com.Odisha1 (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

so Please Restore/undelete the article... Odisha1 (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

And please reply to my talk pageOdisha1 (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing more to say. The article was deleted and deserved to be. Giridharilal Kedia might have ben a nice man but he was not notable. WWGB (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WWGB. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 24.
Message added 20:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Would you care to comment on this deletion review? This is the Article you tagged for CSD#G4 Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami/International assistence

I don't think many of the statements refer to assistence, but rather a proposal of assistance. Hence I think a more general statement International response fits here.Peaceworld111 (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If the section is named International Response, we will get all the usual sympathy/condolence meaningless nonsense. If no assistance is forthcoming yet, I would sooner see the section deleted for now. WWGB (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand your desire to maintain "Japan's specific request", as odd and unusually shortcoming as it may be, in the "International response" section of the 2011 Sendai earthquake article, but that simply does not fit into the International response part of the article.66.214.170.230 (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The USAF base is the hub for aviation and the network of US bases in the Japanese Islands is a fact on the ground. You may find that "grossly offensive" but given the extent of US operations in the Sendai earthquake response, it is decidely your own POV unrelated to the reality that US is a major player. Also, the Russian operational response does not square which your assertion that the content which you summarily deleted constituted an "American takeover". The section was titled "major nation response" and was a work in progress of transfer of material which also included EU and other responses . Perhaps you would ponder the fact that an alphabetical ranking does not accurately reflect an encyclopedic write up of this topic . The US material was the first section transfered, but it would have been better to add material on other major nation responses than to simply delete huge batches of factual, pertinent material just because you, personally, somehow find a documentation of the American humanitarian contribution to somehow be "offensive". Going forward, you might want to consdier discussion of your objections rather than a ham handed deletion.

Similarly, you deleted valid content, although your fundamental point was probably correct at http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Humanitarian_response_to_the_2011_Sendai_earthquake_and_tsunami&diff=418955588&oldid=418955003 That is to say that yes you deleted some spuriour POV surplusage but in the process also deleted some importnat quotatio of a UN official, which such material is very much lacking on the wiki coverage of the Sendai disaster. Please take it easy with your deletion. 12.234.82.137 (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

See also links for Sendai earthquake

Hi WWGB,

I'm normally not a content babysitter, but I feel quite strongly about the need to keep the charity and person finder links in the earthquake article for at least a short while. I've given some explanation here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2011_Sendai_earthquake_and_tsunami#See_Also_links_to_Google_Person_Finder_and_Charity_Information

If you still feel these links need to go please tell us why in the Discussion section. In the meantime I will restore them, but I am open to their permanent removal after getting community input.

Sorry if I'm being a pain ... I normally hate undoing people's changes, but given the current disaster I really feel like keeping these links will directly help thousands of people and that is too important to ignore. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Answered on article talk page. WWGB (talk) 08:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Timezone in infobox

Please kindly note Talk:2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami#Timezone in infobox. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

What's unreferenced?

I don't know what one of the people who put in the template removed was talking about, but the text of the article currently says 10,000 missing with a cite that says a tenth that many, and the deaths number doesn't match either. Whoever decided to supply death/missing numbers via a template should figure out they need to propagate sources using a template as well. Just an FYI, best regards, --joe decker^{talk to me} 00:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I always think it's more helpful to do something about a perceived problem than engage in drive-by tagging. This is a highly-visited article, and such tags just diminish WP in the eyes of the non-contributing public. WWGB (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently attempting elsewhere to get consensus to either rip out the templates or have the templates provide sources. --joe decker^{talk to me} 00:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I just ripped out the templates. Good point. Best regards, --joe decker^{talk to me} 00:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Winningest/ Most Successful/ Most Medaled

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/winningest As you can see the term in question is a word. The reason this person chose to replace "most successful" was that said phrase is subjective and really more apt for describing entrepenurial endeavor than athletic competition. Winningnest means as applied in this case having won the most quantifiably. Thank you for your efforts, I wanted to respond before turning it back around (re) premptively as I feel that you would not take well to that. Then I thought about it some more and got it right (most medaled).Masterknighted (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the term "winningest" is peculiar to the United States. Most other English speakers would hold the term in some disdain, as it attempts to create a superlative from a participle. I would have argued strongly against its return, as WP:COMMONALITY indicates "Terms that are uncommon in some varieties of English, or that have divergent meanings, may be glossed to prevent confusion. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia." Thanks for raising this with me and not just reversing it (as I did to you!) Regards, WWGB (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Barry O'Farrell

Woah, beat me to it. Thanks for being on the ball with that POV revert work. I fear this page may become more of a problem seeing as the election is tomorrow. Keep up the good work. Cheers Siegfried Nugent (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Barry O'Farrell

On the little issue I'm sure you are becoming aware of on http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Glimmera&action=edit&redlink=1 I just had a looksie at blocking policy where poor referencing and false information to a living person is grounds- problem I'd see is a lot of what this person is doing is very immediate so would not readily be done by an admin that was not watching the new edits... possibly a request for semi-protection status would stop some of the more foolish edits? Kaiserm (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

NSW State election

Hi WWGB. OK, I understand that Keneally is still premier etc. etc. but this edit is just pedantry. The result of the election is known, Keneally has conceded and O'Farrell has been elected Premier (but, yes he has not been sworn in yet). There is absolutely nothing wrong with putting the election result in the election article infobox. The infobox did not say that O'Farrell is premier, it said that he has been elected Premier (i.e. he is Premier-elect). -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not pedantry, and I resent the imputation. In NSW we follow the Westminster system and KK remains Premier at this time. By the way, where was BOF "elected Premier"? I must have missed it! Regards, WWGB (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Risto Perisić

Hello WWGB. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Risto Perisić, 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. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I shouldn't have been quite so provoked, but I did believe that what I considered a sufficiently notable fact that Perisic was chief of police while Lukic was committing the notorious massacres Patrick Robinson described as ranking "high in the long, sad and wretched history of man’s inhumanity to man" was adequately indicated with the mention of the Visegrad massacres (accompanied by an internal link to the article). I shouldn't have been quite so rushed in posting the Hang On and should have tidied up all the bits and pieces I was editing through first, but when it's "sudden death" it's a matter of acting quickly. I've now reinforced the original text with the Trial Chamber wording and I've decided I'll leave expanding the article to another day. But I would urge you when an article is not obviously unreasonable to allow time for it to be worked on. There's no requirement for an article to be complete when posted. Certainly I find that the way I contribute best is by additions and modifications to a basic core - other people's as well as my own. I'm persistent now, but I know other people who would have been valuable contributors who've abandoned Wikipedia determined not to have anything more to do with the exercise because of precipitate deletions. I was going to tidy up but you got there ahead of me, so thanks for that anyway. Opbeith (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

year–present

Hi, I noticed you used a spaced en dash in this context in a NSW politician's box in the See also part. Where both elements are themselves unspaced, the en dash is also unspaced (unlike 3 January – 7 February, where both elements are spaced). Please note that the en dash template spaces the symbol, which is often wrong; its use is benerally discouraged because it's a one size fits all solution. Thanks. Tony (talk) 08:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

58.106.81.131 removing "present"

Not sure if you've seen the discussion I started about this at WT:AUP. If you haven't, you might like to comment. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent Deaths in 2011

Hi. You seem to be a constant presence on the Recent Deaths page. Thanks for all your work there. My understanding is that people with red links are "allowed" to stay on the page for 30 days, until a page is dedicated to them. If that does not happen within the 30 days, then the entry is removed. That was my understanding of the consensus on this matter. Well, an editor insists on deleting the entry for Mandi Schwartz, over and over again. I have no interest in edit warring, etc. The deaths page is not that high on my list of priorities. But, I was wondering if you could intervene and get her entry reinstated. Please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC))

By the way, after I posted this comment on your Talk Page, I noticed that another editor began a discussion about this very topic at the Recent Deaths Talk Page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC))

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

• News and notes: Survey of French Wikipedians; first Wikipedian-in-Residence at Smithsonian; brief news

• In the news: Low-hanging fruit and sustainability; Qwiki on iPad; sceptic critic; brief news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Somerset

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Request to amend prior case; further voting in AEsh case

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alexey Gavrilov (actor)

• This article was created, in whole or in part, on the basis of a translation of the original article «Алексей Гаврилов» from the ru Wikipedia. The list of authors is on the page histories of the original article.--Guzikov96 (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Fleetwood Mac

Just out of curiosity, how is putting Lindsey Buckingham before Stevie Nicks the "correct order"? Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 16:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The article makes it clear that Buckingham was asked to join the band ahead of Nicks. WWGB (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're referring to the first paragraph under "Mainstream success", I guess that makes sense, kind of. It says that Buckingham and Nicks joined at the same time, but that Nicks only joined because Buckingham joined, which would make him slightly more important. Like I said, I don't really care that much, I was just curious. I'm not really much of a fan of Fleetwood Mac, and I really only watch the page because their band timeline looked awful and I made it look better and wanted to make sure nobody reverted my change. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 02:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Dana Wynter

The reflink article (unless it has been changed since the last time I checked) reporting the death of Dana Wynter on May 5, 2011 in the recent deaths section for May 2011 states "congestive heart failure", not "heart failure" as the cause of her death. I do not understand why you keep changing it and your edit summary reason, in light of the above, makes no sense. I don't get it. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The article heart failure makes it clear that "heart failure" and "congestive heart failure" refer to the same condition. Moreover, Wikipedia prefers the term "heart failure"; the page congestive heart failure is a mere redirect. In my opinion, we should be consistent in using Wikipedia conventions wherever possible. Regards, WWGB (talk) 05:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Lists of deaths

Hi, I removed some red links from the March 2011 list after reading they should be removed after month. My question is, I read something about a red link archive, but I don't know where it is or if it still exists. Is there some place I should add the refs for the links I removed? — Bility (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey

If a person is notable enough to included in the death articles after being dead and it's a red link, why should it be removed? The person is notable and dead. The red link should not matter. B-Machine (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Notability is confirmed by the Wikipedia community. Until that happens it is a matter of personal opinion - you say someone is notable, I say they are not. Appearing on a list of recent deaths is not a guarantee of notability. If you think someone who died recently is notable, why not write a short stub article? That serves two purposes:

1. It turns the redlink blue so it will not be deleted.
2. It gives other editors the opportunity to discuss notability through Speedy Deletion, Proposed Deletion or Articles for Deletion. If the stub is not deleted, then it may grow further, and the death notice will remain.

Regards, WWGB (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks for spotting my error of forgetting to put User in front of my uploaded list of missing bacteria. --Squidonius (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

speedy deletion of Kerala_nakshatra_signs

appropos article in qn Hi , pls respond/revert here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kerala_nakshatra_signs ) .

thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimesmonster (talk • contribs) 08:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Kathy Kirby

What do you mean, the cites are deprecated? See the discussion page about her name. There are no citations given for her name or date of birth as there normally would be. I think her name may have been Catherine E. O'Rourke.Ravenscroft32 (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Lea Michele Photo

Please read the context of the photo I have added rather than persisting in your reflexive response to delete it. That is counterproductive. As is the rather unnecessary and frankly, insulting suggestion that it is a photo of me. It absolutely is not. I am owed an apology for your false assertion and lack of good faith inference. Indeed I did upload the photo, but only because it is entirely relevant to the section that it supports. While your concerns regarding notability, in the context of that section, are irrelevant. Especially because, to assuage any concerns, I had already addressed them by preemptively removing the name of the additional individual from the photo caption.

To be very clear: the photo is of the article's subject posing with a fan at a charity event held on the show's set - and the photo is placed within the very section that specifically discusses the subject's advocacy work. In that context, how is a photo illustrating the subject's attendance at a charity event not relevant? Of course it is. And what "notability" does a fan attending that charity event have to have? Absolutely none. Especially since no other photo apparently exists to illustrate the advocacy discussed in the section. If you have a better photo for that section, feel free to upload it, and we can discuss it. But until then, any article with just two other images? And none to illustrate an important section? Is well-served by all the additional images it can get. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Try to explain it on the article talk page, please. To be frank, I don't think this image should be in the article. "Lea with a Fan" is not at all illustrating her charity activities. Adornix (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The Peta Poster is perfect, thank you. And sorry for interfering here. I usually don't write much in the english WP because my english ist not good enough. Adornix (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

NPP

Hi. Thank you for patrolling new pages. Five minutes was a bit quick for an A3 on University of Cebu Chorus. which is obviously an Article Wizard creation, and may still clearly be in development. There are special recommendations about being too quick with A1n and A3 if they are not obviously vandal or attack pages. Please remember that quality and accuracy are far more important than speed, and are the criteria of good page patrolling. Please take a moment to read the new WP:NPP, and if anything is not clear, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Victor Ward

Hi, coulf you fix the CAT for Victor Ward's 2011 deaths entry? I'd like him to appear in the W's, not the V's. Thanks. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 12:15 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of article Pilot (Russian band)

Why do you want to delete this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guzikov96 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

How about "no reliable independent sources that indicate notability" for starters? WWGB (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• This article was created, in whole or in part, on the basis of a translation of the original article «Пилот (группа)» from the ru Wikipedia. The list of authors is on the page histories of the original article.--Guzikov96 (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• Also, this article is unfinished.--Guzikov96 (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Idea

Create a mini-project to bring the articles of Neda, Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Said, and Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb up to GA/FA status. Possibly expand to include others whose deaths became symbols of war and peace (i.e. Pat Tillman). Would you like to work on something like this? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/HistoryBioLife. Might need a new name, but check it out... Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5#User:Timeshift9

As you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5#User:Timeshift9. T. Canens (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

RowdyCat

Go ahead with the block on RowdyCat, he just won't acknowledge the talk page and reverting the edit. I just wish he was a little more co-operative. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 2:41 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Bob Gould

Nice work on this article - I was surprised that we didn't have one on him before his death. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This Barnstar is awarded to WWGB for his contributions to revert attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia. --Srikant Kedia 14:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wrapped Up Good

Why did you name the article Wrapped Up Good (album)? There was no other article called "Wrapped Up Good", so I moved it for you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Because there is also a song called "Wrapped Up Good". It made sense to dab the album and song articles, and to reserve the article title Wrapped Up Good as a dab page. WWGB (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Then wait until after the song has an article. Don't put the cart before the horse. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

RCP proposal

Adamrce, Anna_Frodesiak, Baseball_Bugs, Csloomis, Cntras, Evaders99, Fæ, Shrike, Qwyrxian, WWGB, Who.was.phone:
met you guys at edit conflicts for undoing vandalism/ warning the same vandals/reporting at AIV.
I've made a proposal at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Recent_Changes-_tags_for_patrolled_and_reverted_edits. This is regarding managing vandalism at RCP. What do you think?Staticd (talk) 11:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

CSD

Some admins are quite vehement about precision and will even argue about it. We have all these different criteria for a very good reason: Quality control of the encyclopedia is paramount, and each tag is coded to enter the deletions into categories for the purpose of statistical research. Removing these standard messages to you does not delete them. I hope this helps. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WWGB. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 03:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

this edit

I am not sure what you think you are doing. I am not going to accuse you of sympathizing with the perpetrator, and will prefer to assume you do this out of pure naivete. But what you are doing is helping perpetuate a reward system for killing-sprees. This guy may be notable as a killer. It has not been shown that his biography or his political writing has any notability on its own. Yet you are pushing the suggestion that they are in the face of clear Wikipedia policy. So yes, I am sort of accusing you of "helping the terrorists", but again, I do not assume that you do this out of sympathy, I prefer to assume that you are merely unaware of the implications. So unless I am wrong and you are indeed in the ideological camp of the perpetrator, please sit down, take a breath, and read my talkpage post. Then think carefully about the implications. If that doesn't help, you may still agree that leaving up a cleanup tag isn't disproportionate to what is still, after all, a clear violation of the letter of our WP:PERP guideline. --dab (𒁳) 14:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I am almost inclined to neither acknowledge nor reply to your absurd hinting at sympathy with a mass murderer, and your crass rudeness in calling me a variety of names. The sole fact is that the editors of Wikipedia decided by consensus that there was sufficient scope to maintain a separate article on Breivik. Your decision to tag the article was against this consensus and reflected just one opinion. In summary, just as you are entitled to add a tag, I am entitled to remove it, especially as there was no support for its retention. I note that you re-added the tag and it was again removed. Are you going to accuse that editor of helping the terrorists as well? WWGB (talk) 01:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Christian apologism.

C'mon, anyone who looks through this group of edits clearly sees it is christian propoganda trying to deligitimize the claim Breivik is a Christian. You remove christian terrorism, Call him a Darwinian. Remove any refs to his nickname as a crusader. Come on. This is wikipedia, a neutral encyclopedia using WP:RS, not convervapedia. Please do not revert this ridiculous pro-christian series of edits. [1] Pass a Method talk 02:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirects of redlinks on the Deaths in 2011 page

I have noticed that one editor, GiantSnowman, has been redirecting many redlinks on the Deaths in 2011 to other articles. This concerns me because without the redlink showing on the page, the chance of someone creating an article for the person will greatly decrease. Some of the redirects like Allison Harte and George Ramos go to articles that do not even mention the deceased person. I tried to remove the Harte redirect, but it was immediately rejected because it blanked the page. Is there anything that can be done about this? (Sorry if this is the wrong place for this, I thought I would get your opinion first. Feel free to move it to the Death in 2011 talk page if you think it belongs there). Thanks. BurienBomber (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, BB. I agree that turning a redlink into a redirect is not helpful in encouraging the development of an article about the deceased. We both know from experience that redlinks often prompt other editors to write articles (or at least stubs). I don't think there is much chance of deleting a redirect (no admin would support deletion). Why don't you try a message on GiantSnowman's talk page? I'm sure he is only trying to be helpful to the project, but if you explain that his action may well frustrate the development of a better article, then he might stop. You could also put something on Talk:Deaths in 2011 but a personal approach may have greater effect. Regards, WWGB (talk) 08:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC). (PS, keep up the good work!)