User talk:Tassedethe/Archive 2

Jim Dobson

You are welcome to join a discussion at Talk:James Dobson#What should Jim Dobson be?. Jclemens (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Mike Lee

You removed a prod tag from the article Mike Lee (racing driver) claiming referenced notability, please explain on the talk page why you think this person is notable and repair the deficiencies in the article, or otherwise replace the prod tag. 128.114.59.182 (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tassedethe. You have new messages at MWOAP's talk page.
Message added 22:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MWOAP (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

James Martin (disambiguation) page

Please explain why you undid the move: it is not "misplaced", it is a clarification consistent with Wikipedia disambiguation page conventions. Wikiuser100 (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:MDP. If there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC then disambiguation pages are found at Foogle not Foogle (disambiguation). I know of no other conventions. Tassedethe (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Edge of the City 1957.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Edge of the City 1957.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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Skier Dude (talk) 06:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony Jackson and jazz history

Hello. I am disputing your page move of the Tony Jackson article, to a title which seems to me pushing a point of view that is highly disputed in music history without offering justification. I have started discussion at Talk:Tony Jackson (jazz musician). Thank you. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I have replied at the article talk page. Tassedethe (talk) 08:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD

I've nominated List of former Jews, List of former Christians, and List of former Muslims together for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Jews.Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Oldtown

Why did you change stuff? Gooseman88 (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Because of incorrect punctuation. Tassedethe (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned-Out

Hi, T... I thought you were WikiCleaner. What you do, get cleaned-out, or something! (or burned-out)! My wife cleans for me, but I cook for her. (She cleans better than me, but I cook better than her.) I bring this up because you don't wiki-clean like you use to. Oh well. See you around. Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No burn out, just not my top priority at the mo Thanks. Tassedethe (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation "cleanup"

I should apologize for the time you wasted with Arthur Roberts, but since my time was wasted too, it sort of cancels out, I guess. Do you really believe that having all disamb pages neatly formatted according to some arbitrary standard makes Wikipedia so much better? When we still have many articles like this? Or this? Or this? It is sad to see so much editor's effort being wasted in moving Wikipedia sideways... Anyway, sorry, it is the end of a long boring night. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

While I accept that having your edits canceled out is frustrating I do believe editing pages to conform to the WP:MOS is a worthwhile task. While the principal aim is always accurate, sourced information, when that information is presented in a clear, uncluttered, professional manner that is only to the benefit of Wikipedia. The style guide might seem arbitrary but it has evolved from discussions over many years and is generally a product of consensus. Thanks. Tassedethe (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Tassedethe, I will not fight on this issue. However beware that almost every page in Wikipedia:*, even when it claims to be "consensus", is actually the opinion of a very small set of editors, and was never submitted for approval to a wider majority.
I have been able to track down a couple of cases where a guideline was voted. In one case (the placement of the {{unreferenced}} tag) the alternative that got declared as "consensus" was voted by only nine out of 30 editors. In the other case (the "notability" guidelines) the voters were about 180 editors; I was unable to check whether the majority opinion was respected, but on some items the majority was barely over 50%. For comparison, it is estimated that Wikipedia has some 10,000 "regular" editors, for some defintion of "regular". *In both cases voting was effectively restricted to editors who helped write the rule*, which obviously did not include any editors who were fundamentally opposed to it.
Wikipedia is now like a country where any group of 10 people can invent a rule, and proclaim it a Law of the Nation. There is no cost/benefit analysis of new ideas. There is no mechanism to ensure that new rules and guidelines have the approval of any representative subset of the editors. The result of this "anarchic oligarchy" is a lot of features, rules and projects of little or negative merit, that only create unnecessary strife and waste editors's work: wikiprojects, article-space editorial tags, Wikipedia 1.0, article grading, multiple stub tags with pointless icons, navboxes, infoboxes, notability guidelines, en-dashes in compound names, {{cite}} templates, and much, much more. Sigh... Anyway, all the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Peter Frank

What is your plan with this article - which "uncontroversial page move" is going to take place? Was the reason of the deletion that it was an "unnecessary disambiguation page" as stated at Wikipedia:CSD#G6? If yes, why didn't you discuss the deletion beforehand, seeing that numerous people are named derivatives of Peter Frank - Peter Franks (fictional), Peter Frank (art critic), Peter Frank Andersen (who started out as the Peter Frank article, and is only known by that shortened name), Johann Peter Frank, Peter Emery, Peter Radford, Peter Twinn, Peter Broadbent (footballer), Peter Davis (director), Pete Falcone - perhaps as well as people named Frank Peter. And even if you find that Peter Frank shouldn't serve as a disambiguation page, why haven't you mentioned Peter Franks, Peter Frank Andersen, or Johann Peter Frank at the Peter Frank (art critic) page, which you have chosen to redirect Peter Frank to? If anything, this strange deletion of the disamb page I made yesterday is only confusing access to the subject matter "Peter Frank". What is your plan? Poulsen (talk) 09:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, one caveat. I now see that Peter Frank is not a redirect to the Peter Frank (art critic) page - I must have got it confused as the search result for "Peter Frank" states that it is a redirect. Poulsen (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages, if needed, only list articles that are known by the name in question. From WP:MOSDAB#Examples of individual entries that should not be created: "On a page called Title, do not create entries merely because Title is part of the name". As there is only one article called Peter Frank then this should be at the base name. A hatnote from Peter Frank to Peter Frank Andersen is appropriate, but the rest are just partial matches and should be left to the search function of Wikipedia. Tassedethe (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, now that you (well, User:boleyn3 at least) have then finished the move. I can see here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive489#Peter_Frank_VS._Peter_Frank_Anderson that the footballer was moved back in November 2008, in order to provide room for the art critic, so it is good that that was finally followed through. But the reason there is "only one article called Peter Frank" is that the original Peter Frank (the footballer) was moved, as it must be noted, that Peter Frank Andersen is commonly known simply as Peter Frank and that his full name is arcane trivia knowledge to the general (Danish football-aware) public, and thus not the appropriate title of that article. It is clear that the aforementioned move was done without proper knowledge of the subject of the footballer. So I'll move the footballer to Peter Frank (footballer) (as the art critic is probably the most notable subject?), and all is dandy. Poulsen (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Gaylord - Book publishing industry - a unit of measuring an amount of books

I've started a discussion at Talk:Gaylord#Book publishing industry - a unit of measuring an amount of books which you might be interested in, because it includes your edits. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Scam of readers via wikipedia content

Please read and help Free Wikipedia articles are on sale as printed books for 50 dollars each in Amazon.com with no prior warning Kasaalan (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

John M. Tobin

• 1John M. Tobin

• 2John M. Tobin

RichardBond (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is not available to me. Information that can be accurately sourced from such books is a welcome addition to Wikipedia; information that is added without references is likely to be removed. Referenced information should be added to articles, disambiguation pages are merely for navigation to that information. Tassedethe (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Bight

Salutations! Just stopping by to let you know that Benjamin Wright (composer), an article you proposed for deletion, has been restored after the proposed deletion was contested at requests for undeletion. Feel free to pursue the article's deletion at AfD if you feel it is appropriate. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Wallonia

Do you think Wallonia needs a disambiguation? All the words in the page "disambiguation" mean the same topic: 1) "Walloon Region", 2) "French speaking ara of Belgium" 3) the meridional part of Belgium belonging to the Romance linguistic field (and for this one, I think it is not right, the right word may be "Belgique romane"...). If you agree with me, I remove "otheruses". I will say that this disambiguation is not the same as, eg, Mercury and mercury. They are two individuals. Here, Wallonia, Walloon Region and French speaking area of Belgium are absolutely the same thing (excepted perhaps for Walloon Region but is is said in the page itself), the same individual (in the philosophical sense). It is very strange there is this page of disambiguation. Here the p. Disambiguation could be confusing. Sincerely. José Fontaine (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The page seems to be a compromise based on discussions on the talk page. Generally you would have such disambiguation page for 3 or more entries. The subtleties of the various Wallonias are not my field of expertise so I wouldn't like to judge which are valid entries, they appear to link to several different pages. It's usual practice to link Foo (disambigution) from the main Foo page which is the only edit I have made in this context. You are welcome to make changes to the dab page but they be disputed based on the talk page discussions. Tassedethe (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP issues

Hey Tasse, in regards to this edit, I found that the editor in question has made dozens of edits like the one you basically undid. I have asked them on their talk page for an explanation. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think your intervention has improved his edits, certainly that article has now got much better sourcing. Tassedethe (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, let me ask you this (you seem to be a seasoned editor)--Trackinfo replied on my talk page, and I am not entirely satisfied with the answer. But I don't have the time (or the energy), certainly not today, to go and check every instance where they removed what I consider to be valid tags. Besides, I think these edits are really quite problematic. What do I do? To some noticeboard, like ANI? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is all wrapped up in the tangled mess that is the WP:BLP policy and current plans for sticky prods etc. As an inveterate fence-sitter I can see both sides here, by adding a reference (no matter how poor) to an article it is then strictly not unreferenced and therefore the article is immune from any automatic or semi-automatic deletion proposals. As you have pointed out the fact that most of the article is unreferenced, or the source is dubious per WP:RS, still goes against the spirit of the BLP protection policy. The ANI noticeboard would certainly be the place to get more eyes to look over the edits, but I'd suggest WT:BLP to get the views of the Project. If the removal of {{BLPunreferenced}} was more often accompanied by its replacement {{BLPrefimprove}} that would solve most of the problems AFAICS. Tassedethe (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For adding year categories to individuals. I give you this award with the hope you continue the hard work on this area. Magioladitis (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Tassedethe (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yiqing Weng

When you said you could find no sources, does that mean that you searched for what sources would be likely to be found, in Chinese sources? I recognize this sort of thing as a great difficulty here in terms of the BLP sourcing issue . DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I admit I made no searches in Chinese (with Chinese characters etc.). I'm not even sure if this person is male or female. But sports-reference.com shows no Chinese Olympic volleyball player with the name Weng or Yiqing. There is no player of that name on the China women's national volleyball team or China men's national volleyball team. There are no incoming links from any volleyball page. If this person had been an Olympic volleyball player it seems odd there is no trace of them. Google image search, which is usually very good for identifying people, brings up no hits (as does ordinary Gsearch). If you have other suggestions or better sources please feel free to contest the prod. If this person had claimed to be a volleyball player of the 70s, 80s, or even 90s it could be accepted on the basis of a pre-internet era. But a player on the Olympic team from 1988-2005? That seems a stretch. Tassedethe (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

blpunreferenced

Hi Tassedethe, I think for a lot of people the blpunreferenced template is not necessary. There is nothing what is worth to cite. All data are taken from other Wikipedia sites (where the sources are given). These short (often only one sentence) biographies are somehow an extract of other pages. For instance Majken Vange. This sentence is an extract of the article 1999 IBF World Championships. blpunreferenced is not applicable. The link to 1999 IBF World Championships should be enough. --Florentyna (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The template is pretty clear that it should not be removed unless suitable references are added. Some of the pages that were linked also didn't have references making the removal very incorrect. If target articles have references that it shouldn't be to much trouble to copy the details to the page in question. You are the only person who has removed tags without adding references, and I have tagged many articles in the last few days. If you want to redirect single sentence articles to the approriate page then I wouldn't have a problem with that. But I will continue to replace any tags that are removed when no references are added. Tassedethe (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is not necessary to make a reference for every sentence written, if the sentence is linked to the site it is taken from. And: On some pages are in the meantime more templates than sentences. For Wikipedia users (not contributors!) it is nearly impossible to find the information needed between all the templates. Especially the dominance of the blpunreferenced is really annoying. The first thing a user sees on a page is this template. It should be much smaller, and in the place where you can find references. The blpunreferenced template is not the thing what a user is searching for. --Florentyna (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree overtagging can be annoying but the solution is to add references not just remove tags. References are not required for every sentence, but every article must have at least 1 reference. BLPunreferenced is deliberately prominent because unreferenced articles on living people are of special concern. Tassedethe (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Gaskynd Granger

I noticed that you added this article to the cat "possibly living people". I find this conclusion a little surprising. Please see Talk:Gaskynd Granger#Living? Guettarda (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied at the article. Tassedethe (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

blpunreferenced dates

I note that you are changing dated {{unreferenced}} tags into {{blpunreferenced}} tags. I understand your thinking; however, this moves the article from one cat (example Category:Articles lacking sources from October 2006) into another (example Category:Unreferenced BLPs from October 2006). This causes a problem as a number of editors are currently moving through the unreferenced BLPs by date, and when a category has been dealt with, it is deleted, and editors move onto the next dated category. By changing the template you are moving articles into deleted categories. There are two solutions. Either you recreate the appropriate dated category, or you leave the dated {{unreferenced}} tag as it stands, and create a new dated {{blpunreferenced}} tag. In a sense this second solution feels the more appropriate, as editors have not actually been aware that the articles you are adjusting have been blp issues for as long as you state, and also it can be demotivating and confusing for editors to move forward through the blp concerns, only to find new ones popping up behind them, in a place they did not expect, and which most people are no longer looking at because the category has been deleted. I will make the appropriate adjustments to the ones you have already done which have been placed in deleted categories. If you have any questions regarding this, please get in touch. SilkTork *^YES! 19:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

When I started I did recreate some of the old categories e.g. Category:Unreferenced BLPs from February 2007, but then there was bit of recreating/deleting as articles were added/removed so I decided to leave recreating the older categories until I had slowed down my sweep. I can appreciate it might be disheartening but also it does mean there are many BLP articles that have been around for years and tagged as unreferenced but are still not fixed. I think they need to be dealt with as soon as possible. And that means recreating the categories, not putting them at the back of the queue where it might be another year or more before they are fixed. Tassedethe (talk) 01:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

When we place tags we date the tag from the point at which it was placed, not from when the article was created. It is misleading to suggest that those articles have been tagged with BLP unreferenced concerns since 2006. And it is unhelpful of you to be doing this and making a progressive clean up more difficult. I would have appreciated you getting in touch before restoring misleading tags and undeleting closed categories. I am quite happy to talk through any concerns you may have about this, and to look for a positive way forward. If you are willing to discuss this matter, please get in touch. SilkTork *^YES! 15:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see these are BLPs that have been tagged as unreferenced for over 3 years. The fact they were not with the BLPunreferenced template seems a minor point. I am performing the same edit as Smackbot. See here: "Yes be aware that if SmackBot comes across (in the course of dating tags, possibly not if it's doing another job) an article tagged as unreferenced and in the living people category it will change the tag to BLPunreferenced. Same applies to refimprove and BLPsources. The date will remain." (my emphasis) Smackbot has not fixed these articles previously as they were not placed in the correct category i.e. Living people. I have never altered the date of a tag, only changed it from unreferenced to BLPunreferenced. I don't see how my edits are in anyway unhelpful. Believing that because a category has been emptied and deleted that this means that there no problems left is demonstrably false. Tassedethe (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Please also see here: this is an approved AutoWikiBrowser feature. Tassedethe (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tassedethe. If we have BLPs that are unreferenced for 3 years then they should be on the top of the queue. If fact we just shoudn't move them behind becaue we just specialised their tag. Blpunreferenced is only a specilisation of Unreferenced from BLPs. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hede Massing

Have erased your category and added dates.--Radh (talk) 10:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It seemed unlikely she was alive but we always err on the side of caution. Tassedethe (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

And without your edit I would not have looked for the bloody source.--Radh (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Rodney Fox

Hi, I woudl like to argue that Rodney Fox (conservationist) is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, unfortunately, http://stats.grok.se seams to be down and I actually know nothing about Rodney Fox (canoer). If I do some quick google checks I get many more hits on Rodney Fox (conservationist) but then a canoer that compeated in the 70'ish would be at a Google disadvantage. --Stefan ^talk 01:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverted my bold move for you. Tassedethe (talk) 07:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!! --Stefan ^talk 09:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Philip Beresford

This person is well-known and generates many Ghits of reliable sources. I added three of them myself. So I removed your Prod per WP:BEFORE. Please send it to WP:AfD if you disagree with me. Bearian (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Your references mention Philip Beresford but are not about him, so I would dispute they show his notability. If it goes to AfD I will certainly let you know. Tassedethe (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ned Stuart

An article that you have been involved in editing, Ned Stuart, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ned Stuart. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Please revert

Not to sound too nasty, but please undo everything you did at Jack Faust. If you had checked the history you may have seen that basically a newbie (User:Timlyman) was trying to create the article and his/her last edit was asking for help on that. This really comes across as WP:BITE to me. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

As a courtesy I will restore the page but please note that it is usual to create the article, not the dab page, first. While not intending to be bitey it is also not good to give newbies an unrealistic idea of how things get done. Tassedethe (talk) 06:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know how things are done around here. But here, it is a very minor procedural issue for a newbie who had the article written in their user space. We're not talking about bending the rules on a BLP violation, or on an RfA, or a personal attack, legal threat, etc. Dab issues are a MOS guideline, and that's it. "Remember, our motto and our invitation to the newcomer is be bold. We have a set of rules, standards, and traditions, but they must not be applied in such a way as to thwart the efforts of newcomers who take that invitation at face value." Aboutmovies (talk) 08:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Richard Fitz-Simon

Hi Tassedethe, your edit of Richard Fitz-Simon, removed a catagory in which it was listed? I have now put in "Order of the Garter" as a replacement. I don't know why its come up in "red," but I believe that it is relevant. Can you tell me why you removed the original catagory? Ta Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed a category that did not exist Category:List of Knights and Ladies of the Garter. And even if it did exist it would be wrongly named (it would be Category:Lists of Knights and Ladies of the Garter), and even if that existed would be unsuitable for this article. As the name suggests such a category would be for lists of Knights (e.g, if they existed, List of Knights of the Garter of the 14th century, List of Knights of the Garter of the 15th century, etc.). The new category also does not exist (which it is why it is red) and the title suggests it should contain articles about the Order of the Garter, which this article is not about. Compare Category:Academy Awards, which contains articles about the Academy Awards, and Category:Academy Award winners which contains people who have received Academy Awards. WP:CAT contains more information on the categorization system. I will add some more relevant categories to the article. Tassedethe (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

David Jones

Why? (I'm not annoyed, just puzzled.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It's usual to have all articles with the same title on the same disambiguation page. In this case if someone links a footballer as either David Jones or David Jones (footballer) then they end up at the same place. Previously a footballer linked as David Jones couldn't be disambiguated to the correct title using automatic tools as all the footballers weren't on the main page. The redirect {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} is used to tag pages like David Jones (footballer). I hope thats OK. Ta. Tassedethe (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Levon Mirzoyan

what makes you think Levon Mirzoyan is alive? Please be thoughtful with your edits--Work permit (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

A simple oversight - the person had the category 1939 births, which you also failed to notice was incorrect. Tassedethe (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The Paralympics Task Force Invitation!

	You are cordially invited to join the Paralympics Task Force!
	You appear to be someone that may be interested in joining the Paralympics Task Force. Please accept this formal invitation from a current member of the project. We offer a place for you to connect with users who also like the Paralympic Games and facilitate team work in the development of Paralympic Games articles.
	If you decide to join the project, please add your name to this list.
	I hope you accept! - ~~~

Bib (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite but I find I have plenty of other tasks to be going on with. Tassedethe (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Article "Dating" problem

Hi again (you helped me with the Robert Seymour (-dated-) problem). I’ve recently written a New Article: Kingdom of Great Britain 1603-1714. But, there is an existing Article: Kingdom of Great Britain, (undated – which should state 1714-1801). Is it possible for this Old article “title” to be dated, to avoid confusion? Any advice welcomed, regards. Stephen2nd (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the sort of request that would benefit from using the Wikipedia:Requested moves page. You would need to add the following to the talk page of Kingdom of Great Britain:

== Requested move ==

{{subst:move|Kingdom of Great Britain 1714-1801}} To avoid confusion with the article [[Kingdom of Great Britain 1603-1714]]. [[Kingdom of Great Britain]] would be replaced by a disambiguation page. ~~~~

Obviously you could word it however you like. A bot will publicize the move of the WP:RM page. and will give people 7 days to comment. While I claim no expertise it is a request that seems reasonable. Hope this helps. Tassedethe (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks again for your help, most appreciated, many regards : ) Stephen2nd (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

{{subst:uw-talk1|Juan Bravo}} PatGallacher (talk) 09:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

BLP PROD removed

Hi, I removed the BLP PROD tag from Michael Harrison (Judo), as that tag only applies when the article was created after 18 March 2010. Please see WP:BLPPROD for more information, or feel free to drop me a line. If you still feel the article warrants deletion, please use one of the other methods. Thanks  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 16:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Also removed from Mike McDermott (ecologist).  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 16:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

One more, Keith McDonald (mayor)—last one, I promise :)  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 16:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. Back to boring old PROD for me. Tassedethe (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Happy PRODding!  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 17:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Trentham Railway Station - Removal of capital letters

Why did you change the R in railway and S in station to lowercase letters? Trentham Railway Station is a name of a place, therefore the use of capital letters is the correct type of punctuation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadels (talk • contribs) 06:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The name of the place is Trentham, there is no evidence that this is a proper noun, so the 'railway station' part should be in lower case. Tassedethe (talk) 08:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

List of documentary films

Thanks for helping out on the above list, I think you derserve this; not for the single edit, but for all you other contributions. Good job keep it up:)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		reconized for your excellent contributions intraining Jack In 10:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! Tassedethe (talk) 10:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ken Thompson

Hi, it looks like Kenneth Thompson and Ken Thompson (disambiguation) pages are messy, couldn't they be combined, with one redirecting to the other, or something like? but I think I'm not experienced enough to make it. Anyhow, thank you for the correction of my wrong edit. Cheers --Od1n (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

There was a lot of duplication so I merge them all to Kenneth Thompson. Tassedethe (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

wow, you've been fast! thank you ;) --Od1n (talk) 08:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision to Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri articles

I noticed that you have revised either Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire.

I intend to revise those articles following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have. It would be best if your comments were on the discussion pages of the two articles.

Thank you.

Vyeh (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Volleyball players

I have seen that you edited some volleyball articles. Some players articles, most of them looks outdated. I would like to improve players by country. Could you please choose a country to contribute with? Please take a look on Yekaterina Gamova, Hélia Souza, Serena Ortolani and Kenia Carcaces for a model to follow. Please can you please improve some volleyball players with infobox and some addons? References are very important. Let me know. Oscar987 22:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but I have no particular knowledge of volleyball players so I won't be able to take up your offer. Good luck with your editing. Tassedethe (talk) 08:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Andrew Gordon

Sorry about that. I was acting in good faith, though. QuasyBoy (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks QuasyBoy (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Miguel Rodríguez

A tag has been placed on Miguel Rodríguez requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Tubby23 (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Repairing redirect links

I'm not sure if I should mention this here or at the Wikicleaner talk page, but regarding this diff, it seems to me that the correct way of fixing the link would be

#REDIRECT [[Over the Top (film)]]

instead of

#REDIRECT [[Over the Top (film)|Over the Top]] 

. Redirect pages should be as explicit as possible about what they are redirecting to. This is most in accord with WP:NOTBROKEN. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out but piping in redirects has no effect on their visibility. If you look at Lincoln Hawk you can see the redirect as Over the Top (film), not as Over the Top (which you'd expect for a piped link). I will however endeavour to use the replace function in Wikicleaner in future (and I'll fix that edit). Hope that's OK. Tassedethe (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Fred Cone disambiguated

Soon after I moved Fred Cone to Fred Cone (running back), you moved him again. I see the point. Using "What links here?" and article histories I see that you have corrected many links to Fred Cone and there are many other you haven't corrected. (I hadn't corrected any at the "running back" stage.) I can't tell whether you are doing it by hand (what is WikiCleaner 0.99?) and I don't understand the documentation regarding what is done by robots. Initially I thought that robots do all but double redirects.

What about the en dashes that I "spelled out" at Fred Cone, now a disamb page. Is there an important point to your correction and how have you done it? If there is a project to replace that code, and it's hard work (looks like you are doing it by hand), I'm sorry to say that I'm responsible for many many instances :-( --P64 (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiCleaner is a separate java program that can be used to fix pages that link to dab pages. There is info on it here. All the pages that were pointing at Fred Cone have to be fixed by hand (or with WikiCleaner), none are done by robots. The links that are left are actually caused by the links from the templates (e.g {{1960 Dallas Cowboys}}) and won't be fixed until the templates are updated. That can be as fast as a few minutes but lately has been up to several days.

Re. the replacement of &ndash with –, I don't think I have ever seen it written that one must replace the other. A bit of browsing brings up this Replacing of HTML markup for dashes with Unicode characters. It seems this is more of an editor preference than any style guide preference so you are perfectly entitled to continue to use &ndash. Happy editing. Tassedethe (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. What did you do to find all those links you revised with WikiCleaner? Do you visit every "What links here?", search for the old article name, revise it if you find it, and otherwise suppose that it is buried in a template? (From the original daunting list of links to Fred Cone, I supposed that there must be some succession boxes or teammate boxes on American football pages. I very much underestimated the degree of template development. Wow. I'm glad they're closed by default, with my settings.) --P64 (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikicleaner shows all the pages that link to the old name - but unfortunately it can't distinguish between those with fixable links and those with template links. You have to load up each page and check it, but its pretty quick as there are lots of keyboard shortcuts. Of course you can fix other incorrect links if you find them. Templates while useful are annoying as they make certain pages look like they have lots of links but they're all illusory. Tassedethe (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Simplicity?

A (no doubt) somewhat rhetorical question, but wouldn't life be so much simpler if the biggest problem we all faced was solved by [turning hyphens into ndashes?] Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

A case of looking after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves? Wikipedia puts the lie to that. Tassedethe (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Cuppa Tea

Thanks for all the fixes.
I'd give ya a barnstar or something, but virtue is its own reward, eh?
Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm feeling like a cuppa tea now for some reason ...

Thanks for the thanks. Enjoy the tea. Tassedethe (talk) 06:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Varlaam (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi. I'm a little surprised that you deleted Ticket (Disambiguation) as an R3 without first checking for incoming links. I had to fix four other pages that redirected to the deleted page as well as a handful of other incoming links, all of which were broken as a result of the deletion. Just a reminder to check that "What links here" before deleting. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that was sloppy. Thanks for cleaning up after me. Tassedethe (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

@Tassedethe: Thanks!...for fixing my mistake.

@TFOWR: {{minnow}} D'oh!

TFOWR 09:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, happy editing. Tassedethe (talk) 09:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Fact Tags

So would it be better if I actually use the tag , if I dot know when the comment is from? Please respond on mytalk page again and thx for brininging that up. Children of the dragon (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

About Ralph Erickson

• Hi Tassedethe! Please remove Ralph Erickson (baseball) from your dab list, because he has an entry (Ralph Erickson). Thanks. MusiCitizen (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Tassedethe (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Darts invite

You have been invited to join WikiProject Darts. We are dedicated to improving and expanding darts-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in darts and/or your edits to Darts-related articles. If you would like to join, please click here, and add your name to the bottom of the list of project members. ~~~~

Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 14:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite but I find I have plenty of other tasks to be getting on with. Tassedethe (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"Hold Me (song)"

Hi Tassedethe, sometime last year you redirected this page to "Hold Me", which made sense. I am interested though in creating an article on the redirected title and want to know what you think about it first. My intention was to have this about the duet between Teddy Pendergrass and Whitney Houston. It was released in 1984 as a single charting on three US charts as well as the UK chart. The song appeard on Teddy's Love Language album in 1984, and on Whitney's self-titled debut album Whitney Houston in 1985. I suupose I could name the article "Hold Me (1984 song)" or "Hold Me (Teddy Pendergrass & Whitney Houston song)", though I'd prefer "Hold Me (song)". What do you think? Please respond back. Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

As there at least 6 songs called "Hold Me" it would have to have a title with a disambiguator. I think "Hold Me (Teddy Pendergrass & Whitney Houston song)" is fine, using the year is mainly for older songs that were written by songwriters and often performed by multiple artists. Good luck. Tassedethe (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I will use your suggestion, as it makes clear sense. Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Petersfield M.P.s

Hi Tassedthe

You nominated Category:Petersfield M.P.s for a speedy renaming, which I think woukd be a good idea if kept ... but I reckon it would be better to upmerge the category, so have nominated it at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_9#Category:Petersfield_M.P.s. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I support that. There's also Category:Reading MPs and Category:Hackney Members of Parliament if you want to expand the nom. Tassedethe (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

US County dab pages

I see you have undone the moves I performed of five different US County dab pages. I freely confess I was unaware of the style you referenced. I moved these five "Foogle County" pages to "Foogle County (disambiguation)" to make them consistent with the 300 or so "Foogle County (disambiguation)" pages. So I'm wondering, does this style mean that someone should move all those other pages or should we live with the inconsistency? YBG (talk) 06:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Turns out that for some (most) of the others "Foogle County" is the main disambiguation page and "Foogle County (disambiguation)" is a redirect. So it may well be that your editing was more consistent than mine! Thanks for your work! YBG (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, happy editing! Tassedethe (talk) 06:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hussain Manzoor

The article Hussain Manzoor has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

incorrect name

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 02:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

hats

Can you restore this. The hat dabs Charles Calvert as intended. I guess its an errorVictuallers (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I added it back with the redirect per WP:INTDABLINK. Tassedethe (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Au Pair (film)

Hello from Spain, could you write the article Au Pair (film) in spanish wikipedia, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.198.106 (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but my Spanish is almost non-existent so I cannot produce such an article. Tassedethe (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Tassedethe! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Deborah Smith - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Robert Clark

Just a short note to mention that someone appreciates your good work. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm sure my Nobel Prize/knighthood/Medal of Honor is one step closer. Tassedethe (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Without doubt!! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

deleted page

Would you please provide to me a copy of Peter Easton disambiguation page which you deleted. --doncram (talk) 11:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I have placed a copy at User:Doncram/Peter Easton. Tassedethe (talk) 11:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Brookside characters

"ISBN 1-86200-103-0" is the correct number (as printed on the rear of the book). Among the publishing details the number is given slightly different "ISBN 1 862 00 103 0" (essentially the same number but laid out slightly differently.

The title of the book is 'Phil Redmond's 20 years of Brookside' written by Graham Kibble-White. It was published in 2002 by The Publishing and Licensing Agency Ltd, Carlton Books Ltd, Sevenoaks and Mersey Television.

Regards, Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Replied at your page. Tassedethe (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Invitation for objective participation in discussion

As a trusted editor on WP, you're invited to look at the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Cagney, Jr. and comment. Thank you. Monkeyzpop (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Edmund Nelson

Hi Tassedethe,

I have reverted your move of Edmund Nelson (football player) to Edmund Nelson (American football) and wanted to explain my reasoning. What it comes down to is that the standard disambig for an association football player seems to be (footballer) rather than (association football). I would support a general effort to make all disambigs for American football players (American football) and all association football players (association football), but I am not happy with one group having unmodified football in the name and the other not. --Trovatore (talk) 10:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for explaining your reasoning but until your proposal is accepted this player will have a non-standard title. I will open a full move discussion in due course. Tassedethe (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Lamine Guèye

Hello Tassedethe, I hope you won't take this badly, but I've undone your disambiguation page as it seemed obvious to me that there was a primary topic. I don't fault you, for judging from the stubby condition of the article at the moment one would hardly notice he was one of the most important figures in Senegal's history. But if you want to control, just give a look at google books; you'll notice that the hits involve almost all the politician. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• No problem. Tassedethe (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

William Gilbert

OK, thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Derby

Nice to come across an admin who takes an interest in Derby - are you local? Hi from not-so-sunny Derbyshire this morning anyway! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm just across the border, not sunny here either. Tassedethe (talk) 10:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Sheffield is "another country". My family are from Yorkshire, mother was brought up in Leeds. My grandfather was an Old Contemptible, one of the last to die - he lived in Kirkstall. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That's probably enough to avoid you being run out of the county :) Tassedethe (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I worked in Leeds for the last few years a lot of the time and was (mostly) welcomed, although through gritted teeth. When my mum announced to her Leeds family that she was moving to Derby, her relatives all sympathised and looked puzzled and hurt. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The "dab=" parameter

I noticed that you used this parameter in a sortname template entry in the article 1876 New York Mutuals season. This parameter isn't in the sortname template documentation that I can see (indeed, the documentation as a whole is pretty unclear -- I have no idea how to use the hCard parsing feature, for instance), but certainly is useful, and I wish I'd known about it two years ago. So the question I have is (a) where did you find out about it, and (b) are there any other such useful parameters of which I should be aware? -Dewelar (talk) 03:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I honestly can't remember where I found out about it, but it is handy. Especially when there are multiple links on a page that all need the same dab. The only other parameter I know about is nolink=1, but I see that is documented in sortname. Tassedethe (talk) 05:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

hatnote on Mike Compton (musician)

Hi, I am a little confused as to why you removed the hatnote here...? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I was cleaning up links to the disambiguation page Mike Compton (see WP:DPL and WP:INTDABLINK) and I decided that anyone who ended up at Mike Compton (musician) would not have ended up there by accident, and therefore would not be really looking for Mike Compton (baseball) or Mike Compton (American football). That is outlined at WP:NAMB. If there had been another musician, or tangentially related person, then I would have left the hatnote (or rather fixed it). If you do want to replace it, which is fine by me, please use {{otherpeople|Mike Compton}} which gives the correct redirect as explained at WP:INTDABLINK. I hope that's clear. Tassedethe (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)