User:Pontificalibus/Archive/03

Good point, I guess it will be listed in the next update. Probably due to the fact it's new. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.12.243 (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

reply

I am not User:Michael Paul Heart. Hired gun --75.162.21.102 (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for bothering you, but since you participated in AFD discussion, I thought it'd be gently not let you know about a requested move of the page at its talkpage. Userpd (talk) 13:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for message!

Hello Pontificalibus, This lousy t-shirt has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks

Thanks for the helpful contributions to Greyfriars London. There is a strong chance that the administrators will try to delete it owing to who I am (see this [1] e.g.). I would be grateful for any help in building the article into something that the subject deserves! Peter Damian V (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

CSD Of Knowledge sharing behaviours

I do not really think that would fall under G3, it is not really vandalism. A1 would have probably been better. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 12:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I know exactly what "Knowledge sharing behaviours" is supposed to refer to. Calling it nothing but "bollocks" is surely vandalism though? --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know what it was referring to, regardless, it is back. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 12:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Nvidia graphics processing units

It's bad form to clump many articles into a mass nomination like this. Unless all of the articles are substantially similiar the nomination will be more trouble than it's worth. Individual renominations of some of these may be taken with less of a knee-jerk reaction, but you will need to tailor each nomination to the individual article and point out the specific flaws that each article. Perhaps give these some time and renominate a few of the worst ones that have multiple major issues. ThemFromSpace 07:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Read the AfD carefully - I only nominated two articles. --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. By the format it looks like a batch nomination. I don't think I'm the only editor that was confused by that. ThemFromSpace 09:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Positive response to reversion of "tahash list"

Take a look at the Tahash talk page about your good removal of the "esoteric" list from the section on the Talmud. It was no loss! --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, you wrote it in the first place....--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Disruption

Responding to your last comments on my talk page: the only thing I seem to be disrupting is your own apparent attempt to slant the article Tahash toward one POV—your own apparent conviction that the tahash must be an "unclean" animal, that it couldn't be kosher. (You could have revised the section with "antelope" in place of "addax" instead of "blanking" it entirely.) Your own repeated attempts to do this is disruptive editing and a repeated violation of WP:NPOV policy. See recent Tahash:Talk page entry. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 07:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Assuming Addax from antelope without any suporting sources is the kind of synthesis you have been repeatedly told is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. To accuse me of POV-pushing is ridiculous - I have no agenda on the Tahash article other than to remove the OR and other inappropriate material you have added. To this end I started a discussion about Addax on the talk page around a month ago but got no response, so removed all mention of it from the article as there are no sources to support it. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Pontificalibus. You have new messages at Joe407's talk page.
Message added 10:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Joanna Yeates

Hi, thanks for the help on the Joanna Yeates article. I find it really interesting.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your edits have been helpful to the article, but upon checking the external links, Yeates' family and co-workers do call her "Jo". KimChee (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I am leaving this note because I have found your editorial scrutiny to be sound: I made one change back to note the initial treatment of the death as "suspicious" to fit with the article's chronology that it is ruled a murder at a later date. KimChee (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Great, sounds fine to me.--Pontificalibus (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel like one of two monkeys on typewriters racing to see who will be the first to bang out Hamlet. :) KimChee (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

A request

I like your editorial sensibilities. If you have the time, would you mind objectively glancing at Chandra Levy? It is a similar crime topic, though written under American conventions of English. KimChee (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look, though it's a lot more developed so I'm not sure there is much more to do. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks either way. An objective eye always helps after working on an article too long. KimChee (talk) 11:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

jaitapur

i told in talk page so 25 days ago the problem of the page, but no answers was given. today i deleted all the generalist contents, that has to be put in EPR page end not in NPP plant. elsewere, there are contets POV and WRONG (there are now 4 EPR under construnction, but in the page is sayed that there are only 2, the 2 chinese are under cost and before schedule). i used the correct channel, i told in the object the reason of the reverted, but sachivenga never. best regards (sorry for my english, i'm italian)--Dwalin (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for [2]. On the Jefferies story I am watching you do a good job but I am a bit reluctant to edit much because as it happens he is an old favorite teacher of mine (and very eccentric to the point of attracting attention but in my view charming and probably incapable of harm unless absurdly provoked). Anyway I am probably a bit conflicted by this. --BozMo talk 16:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should add when I say "old" he was my form teacher some 31 years ago... --BozMo talk 17:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I am reminded of the the first suspect arrested in the Ipswich serial murders case. The media had a field day because he was "a bit weird" but he was released without charge. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you were right. Jefferies has now also been released on bail. I guess the Bristol police are just saving face to avoid apologising to him. --BozMo talk 09:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Your edit war at the urban 75 article

You have removed material from the urban 75 article which would have protected the innocent from the dangers of urban 75 forums. You have, at the same time, calumniously accused me, on my Talk page, of introducing the new material without any relevant discussion on the Talk page. BUT you will now go on to protest your innocence, and get away with your vandalism and calumnies, because you are part of the Wifia.--86.31.105.33 (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's purpose to "protect the innocent from the dangers of urban 75 forums". Information in articles must however be adequately sourced, as you were previously made aware of on the article's talk page. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It is widely known and understood that public forums which permit anonymous debate are subject to widespread abuse and trolling. There may be honorable exceptions to this, but the Urban75 article, as you have left it, depicts a louche, risque website with associated forums described merely as 'popular.' This leaves readers rather in the dark as to how a mere discussion forum historically came to derail a senior policeman in his otherwise promising career.

Bottom line - you don't really care. You are a big fish in the little Wiki pond, and have no interest in what you are editing.--86.31.105.33 (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Ecto Crew

FYI, the article in question was CSD's already once today. The author simply reposted it. I do, see, however, per this policy, "This criterion also excludes content undeleted via deletion review, or which was deleted via proposed deletion or speedy deletion (although in that case the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply)". Sorry I misunderstood that before now. Thanks! Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in this case no speedy critera apply to the recreated article as it is now about a book. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

In this follow-up edit to your proposed deletion, the author removed the tag you placed. I restored it. In a later edit, another editor proposed the article for Speedy Deletion as a hoax (the second paragraph does seem questionable). Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

There are 3 types of deletion tag:

Speedy tags can't be removed by the page creator but only apply in limited circumstances

Proposed deletion tags can be removed by anyone and shouldn't be replaced. They can state whatever reason for deletion you choose.

Articles for deletion tags can not be removed by anyone and can state whatever policy-based reason for deletion you choose.

The aim of the first two is to avoid unnecessary 7-day discusions which are initiated by Articles for deletion when the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Hope this helps --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Murder of Joanna Yeates

Fair enough, it was just that he didn't give a reason for removing the information and sometimes that sort of edit can be a bit problematic. Thanks for checking it out and at least no damage has been done. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if my edit summary was a bit terse. I just looked into it because I thought it was a bit of a weird edit to make maliciously. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries, all's well that ends well. TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Another interesting observation about this: the source appears to have changed. The details about the flat battery and jump start have since been removed from the source. However, the fact that an editor forgot to change the title bar text ("Joanna Yeates murder: neighbour interviewed by police over boyfriend's flat battery incident") is a telltale sign that it was once there. KimChee (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have looked for a similar replacement source, and have to concur that the articles I have found so far of the incident mention only the jump leads. There is no Google cache of an older version of the article to compare what has been removed. KimChee (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, your correction to the reference appears to have addressed this. KimChee (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Definately something weird going on there with the url and article title. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Another observation: I noticed that Associated Press articles hosted on Google, unlike other major news sites, tend to expire relatively quickly as Google appears to license them only for short windows of time. If their hosting of the UK Press Association article that you just added suffers the same fate, you may want to substitute the original police press release. KimChee (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I replaced the ref. I originally thought to use the police press release but it's kind of a primary source and I wasn't hopeful it would be retained on their website for long either. Would have used the BBC article but it didn't mention the word "national".--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly I've noticed one or two article links change after I've added them recently. I added a BBC link to one of the current events pages a few days ago only for it to change to something different the next day. TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Great work

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	Hi mate, just dropping by to congratulate you on the work you're doing on the Murder of Joanna Yeates article. In just a few days, it looks stunning already. Best regards, Orphan Wiki 19:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your keen editorial eye on Murder of Joanna Yeates. KimChee (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh

		Java Award for working yourself into the ground
		Get yourself a nice steaming cup! KimChee (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Churchill

Thanks for stepping in - the person is driving me daft. S/he also edited my lead on the relevant section of the Talk page about p.116, but I've reverted it - minor, but a pain. Sitush (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever happened to Assume good faith? 178.106.194.176 (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)