User talk:PatGallacher/Archive 4
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
If we claim it was lies and the conviction is overturned Wikipedia could be in trouble for libel. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- That could apply to any court case about the conviction of a living person. Loads of media outlets have now said that he told lies in the first civil trial. PatGallacher (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The article After Midnight (1990 film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- No reason for notability given, no sources to verify notability, as per WP:NF. Just existing is not a reason to include.
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cerejota (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
discussion
is on the talk page or the BLP noticeboard - please join in the discussion and wait for consensus to clarify - please do not re-add original research, as in claims of waiving anonymity, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of Hot Asphalt for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hot Asphalt is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot Asphalt until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Cerejota (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The article 2011 Helensburgh fire has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- no evidence that it meets the notability criteria for alleged murders
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of 2011 Helensburgh fire for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2011 Helensburgh fire is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Helensburgh fire until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I reverted your removal of the {{unreferenced}} tag as the article is unreferenced. I am currently near the end of assessing over 2,500 unassessed theatre articles, this was not "drive by tagging". I plan to return to those articles of mid and high importance, but it will probably take a year or so. Currently 39% of all theatre articles require attention. You can see the list here.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Layla Ibrahim
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Layla Ibrahim 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.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Bgwhite (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Andyscotlandlewis
Hi perhaps you'd like to tell me why you deleted my edit to the William Wallace article??? Why do you tink my additions aren't helpful??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.167.108.215 (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- An hysterical message like this is unlikely to get you the sort of response you desire. Your edits are not helpful, they are poorly-written, and your use of sources is, at best, questionable. Learn to become a better editor, and you will receive the respect you desire. By the way, do not edit as an IP, either, if you want to be taken seriously. As you have an account, use it. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 16:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
The article Thomas Docherty (politician) has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. ISTB351 (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Genocides in history-- PBS (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Hugh Blaker
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Hugh Blaker 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.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Kerowyn Leave a note 22:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Just a wee note
In case your edit-comment query was addressed to me, your edit here [2] is correct. I had come to Abraham from another page, and found that it was a totally unreadable mess, which is why I reverted your previous edit, not because I disagreed with you about the date order. Regards, --NSH001 (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
thanks
Thank you.Caledoniankilt (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
The article Kendra Drider has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Candidates for political office usually do not get an article, especially "fringe" candidates.
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bgwhite (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
George VI
Hi, as you will no doubt notice, I have made a new move request since the previous one was not formulated properly. You will probably want to record your position in the new section. --Kotniski (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
The article José Alberto Montes has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Minor edit
Software rollbacks are always marked as minor for some reason. Next, read WP:DTTR. And that section on Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy was written by a banned user.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- That is why rollback should not be used for changes which might seem at all controversial. If it was written by a banned user this ought to be clearly explained. PatGallacher (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
move/merge discussion
Hi - * - Talk:Adams family abuse allegations#Nov 2011 - move/split discussion - Off2riorob (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
William Wallace article
Perhaps you would like to help me edit his ancestry It is believed that William Wallace`s ancestor Richard wallace a (norman-breton kinght) came to scotland inthe 1130s in the sevice of walter Fitzalan who had been apointed stewart by King David I and settledin ayrshire. There are sevral ayrshire Wallace seals attached to the Ragman Rolls but none of theme display a lion(the traditional arms asociated with Wallace)used are a Saltire,cross paty and a fleur de lys William Wallace was prbably descended from one of Richard`s sons which married into local scottish land ownig familis Hence Wallace and his scoto-norman ancestors would hane been well acqueinted with Gailic,French,Latin,Greek,and possibly an early form of Scots.[1] plase help me thanks again!!--Highlandjacobite (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)--Highlandjacobite (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.
- Regia Marina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- was linked to Regina Maria
Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Requested Move for "Darius the Great"
- (Discuss) – Darius the Great → Darius I Kauffner (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of Britannica Party for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Britannica Party is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Britannica Party until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Fences&Windows 21:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Britons not British
I can understand your misconception about the issue on Boudicea but the Britons were a completely different race and ethnicity to "British", which is not a historically correct term in this case to describe them, as it only referred to the citizens of the United Kingdom after 1707 following the Act of Union, when Scotland was annexed. Sheodred (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Wallace Sword, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lenticular (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
my movements
Thank you for your message on my talk page, I will open discussion and have good reasons in the future when it comes to my edits. Cheers, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I must humbly request something. You will either provide a citation for changing the commonly used term "Dark Ages", by showing where it is published "that scholars no longer use the term"... or else leave the wording as-is. I have compromised by editing it to "the early 8th century A.D." - and please do not tell me scholars no longer use "A.D." because it is still used... as is "Dark Ages". I'm beginning to see a pattern of attempted ownership of this article. I truly hope that is not the case. Djathinkimacowboy 06:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- It seems something weird is guarding that article. I have requested a fresh eye on this. I'm tired of working to correct the grammar that would shame a grade school dropout, only to have it reverted by you or that other editor. Djathinkimacowboy 22:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the article Dark Ages (historiography) is a reasonable starting point for this issue. I do not intend to revert legitimate attempts to improve the grammar. I suggest further discussion should continue at the talk page for Pope Joan. PatGallacher (talk) 23:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- Only popping by to concur. It would have been useful for you to have done that in the first place. Djathinkimacowboy 23:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I will not come here to warn you again. Pat, you seem to have a problem with my adding the specific century this legend is said to take place. Here[[3]] you seem to me to be engaged in edit warring. I will ask you to stop until you can find a citation that places the legend outside the early 9th century A.D. You do not own this article. It seems to me you are trying to dictate exactly what words can and cannot be used in editing there, and that is wrong of you. Please read the talk[4], and be so kind as to communicate there. Djathinkimacowboy 02:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I have responded to this at Talk:Pope Joan. PatGallacher (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. here[5] Djathinkimacowboy 21:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Pope Joan
Pat, just because I made a critical comment on the talk page doesn't mean you should have gone and reverted again. The whole point is that it's time to stop reverting each other and discuss the issue until we can reach consensus. There's no hurry to fix the article--no harm is being done if that phrase stays in there for a few more days while we sort out the details. I very intentionally only left a message on talk, rather than actually editing the article, to keep this as a discussion, not an edit war. You've made 5 reverts to the article in the past 2 days, and though you've never crossed 3RR, you're definitely coming very close to doing so, and to meeting the general definition of edit-warring. Please just focus on discussion now, and once a consensus is clear, then make whatever changes need to be made. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
The 5 edits were spread out over a period of over 4 days, but that may be nit-picking or wikilawyering. However I will hold my fire for the moment. PatGallacher (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Betty Henderson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The 39 Steps (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The article Jack Hanbury has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- BLP sourced only to IMDb. Also, no real evidence of notability.
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The article Betty Henderson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- BLP sourced only to IMDb; no evidence of notability.
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of The Same Sky for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Same Sky is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Same Sky until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Helen Ford for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Helen Ford is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Ford until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The article José Alberto Montes has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Fails WP:POLITICIAN.
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Helen Ryan for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Helen Ryan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Ryan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Prince Paul Philippe of Romania
Dear PatGallacher, I saw you have undone my changes on HRH Prince Paul of Romania Wikipedia page. I am the Executive Assistant of HRH Prince Paul of Romania and my name is Carmen Stefan. The changes I have made are all based on documents and references that we are providing, in order to clear all the false information on HRH Prince Paul of Romania and his family. The information I have introduced has not harmed anyone and are completely neutral. Because this is my first day on Wikipedia, I hope I have not offended you by contacting you directly and I could use your help and support. Best regards, Carmen Stefan Executive Assistant HRH Prince Paul of Romania E-mail: paulofromania@gmail.com Website: www.princepaulofromania.ro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanmarin07 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you start by reading Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. PatGallacher (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
About that "Romanian Orthodox Christians" category - no, we don't (yet) have hard evidence for it, but consider the following facts. The preponderance of Romanians (and of Russians, which his mother was) are Orthodox. His grandfather was definitely Orthodox, while his father was buried on the grounds of an Orthodox monastery. We also know for a fact that he married in an Orthodox ceremony and baptized his son as an Orthodox. He has met with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople, and he spent Christmas Eve with Patriarch Daniel of Romania at the latter's official residence. And the IP who is probably closely connected to him confirmed for me the prince's religion. As for the Jesuit school, he has said his father sent him there for the "tough" education.
So no, we don't have something citable, and I can understand keeping the category out until we do. But there does seem a 99%+ probability that he is in fact Orthodox. - Biruitorul Talk 03:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
I kindly ask you to remove the name "Paul Lambrino"; you are violating Wikipedia's guidelines. There are NO legitimate or major "English" language sources which refer to HRH Prince Paul as "Paul Lambrino". The sources in the Romanian media which were cited earlier cannot be considered as legitimate as they in ONE single article refer to him with various names (i.e., Paul of Romania, Prince Paul, Paul Lambrino, Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern"). In one article the journalist even wrote that he "officially" was "Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern", albeit there was not reference as to how the latter was his official name, I can simply strongly suspect the journalist used Wikipedia as a source!!! Do you realise the importance of the matter? Neither his Romanian nor his British passport state the name "Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern".
Furthermore, in the articles you cited are virulent towards Prince Paul (pls read the content), therefore they cannot be viewed as legitimate and reliable sources as per Wikipedia's own guidelines!!! In one he is even called "self-styled" "Prince of Romania". His British passport states that the holder is HRH Prince Paul of Romania, how can he be "self-styled" if a government recognises him as such? The content to the article goes to bias against Prince Paul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.225.193 (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I am not particularly hostile towards this person, I'm inclined to think his father and grandmother were badly treated by the Romanian authorities, but that does not justify bending the stick the other way. Raise any issues on the article's talk page. PatGallacher (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
I shall raise my issues immediately on the article's page.
Please beware of the language you use which goes for bias against HRH Prince Paul of Romania. "I am not particularly hostile", but you are hostile indeed? "I'm inclined to think his father and grandmother were badly treated..."; that is simply not relevant here. Your subjective opinion does not matter, it is a matter of analysing sources objectively which you are not doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.225.193 (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Please, the reference to "Paul Lambrino" must be removed!!! He was born in Paris under the name "Paul-Philippe DE HOHENZOLLERN". The article lacks the predicate preceding his FORMER surname, but that is a matter which he is going to take up by contacting directly the Wikipedia Foundation.
He does not use the name "Philippe" at all, so why are you so persistent in adding it in the title? With other subjects only the calling name is used; even in sources which refer to him as "Paul Lambrino", the "Philippe" is not used.
In regards to the name "Paul Lambrino"; the articles which are being utilised as reference are articles which are rather virulent towards HRH Prince Paul, hence, unacceptable as references for Wikipedia. Additionally, how come a few article outweigh the fact that Prince Paul is known under his actual name and title by major and reliable newspapers in Romania and elsewhere. According to Wikipedia emphasis ought to be given to English language sources when available; this is the case with Prince Paul who is known as Prince Paul of Romania in major newspapers in the UK.
Please also notice that in the past, HRH Prince Paul has been named "Paul Lambrino" by "mistake" even by prominent journalists who later had to retract themselves because they lost cases in courts of law. In 2000 he won a lawsuit against Frédéric Mitterand, in 2005 against Stéphane Bern. The later is BY NO MEANS a threat against Wikipedia or any of its administrators, but simply facts. Unlike his father, he has never been born the surname "Lambrino". That name is used by people who dispute his claim to the Royal House of Romania, but that is not clear from this article. The copies of the court decision shall be forwaded to Wikipedia Foundation so the name issue is settled for good.
The fact the article states "also known as Prince Paul of Romania or Paul Lambrino" implies he is known by about the same degree by either name!!! That is rather problematic because it simply is not true. The Government of Romania, foreign royal houses, his friends and family as well as the SERIOUS media outlets address him as Prince Paul of Romania. You only need to google him in several languages, and you shall find a plethora of articles about him with that name (i.e., Prince Paul of Romania, Printul Paul al Romaniei, Prince Paul de Roumanie, Príncipe Paul de Rumania, Paul Romania herceg, Prins Paul av Rumänien).
You can insist upon mentioning the fact that he is also known as "Paul Lambrino" but in that case, and for the sake of neutrality and fairness one ought to clarify that name is exclusively used by people who dispute his claims to the Royal House of Romania. Moreover, that in the past, HRH Prince Paul has taken legal actions against such individuals and won (once again, it is not a threat, simply a fact which needs to be added if you insist in mentioning the legally non-existent name "Paul Lambrino"). The later appellation also has no place in a sentence "also known as Prince Paul of Romania or..." because it misleads people to believe he is equally and acceptably known by both names — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.225.193 (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Your edits to Francis Bacon
Those drastic-seeming IP deletions were in fact the anon editor cleaning up after his/her previous additions. I've been watching them for too long now; a further pair of eyes to assess how it's going would be welcome. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Port Regis School for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Port Regis School is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Port Regis School until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Bob Re-born (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Bobby's Girl
Did you not see the big red warning telling you that {{expand}} isn't used anymore? (Also, {{expand further}} is used when you want the article to be expanded with already-given references.) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The article Brodrig has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- unsourced and nothing to suggest WP:notability as a standalone article.
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. noq (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The article Lathan Devers has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- unsourced and no indication of WP:notability - we don't need to create stub pages for every character Asimov wrote about.
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. noq (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Khader Adnan
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Khader Adnan 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.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. He to Hecuba (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia
Your templating on my talkpage was the most amateuristic action I have encountered in years. Test your edits in the WP:SANDBOX. -DePiep (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, and your es here disqualifies you from neutrality. Is it a coincidence you only slipped your opinion in in this less obvious place? -DePiep (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Paths of Glory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Stein (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
AfD and PROD notifications
Hey Pat. Back in November, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, and it was during one of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links on the page), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at swalling
wikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Chained Girls
Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LegacyOfValor (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- I believe the nominator was in error. They may have mistaken the film topic as an attack page, I do not believe there was any such intention in this case. --Fæ (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
PatGallacher - I am prepared to userfy the article for you to continue drafting and improving it, if the deleting admin does not recreate in the next 24 hours. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- As Fastily seems busy elsewhere, I have userfied a copy of the article for you at User:PatGallacher/Chained Girls. You may find the links below useful, quality sources are easy to find. --Fæ (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
I nominated the page because it had no sources and was written with an obvious slant to the point of slandering the film in topic. It was all opinion and written with quotations around words to influence meaning and felt it had to be removed until it was properly rewritten. LegacyOfValor (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- It would have been better to raise a speedy for some other reason, a G10 should only be used when the reputation of a person is being disparaged in some way. From the text as it was, there was no obvious BLP violation or person being threatened or disparaged. It is only possible to slander a person, not a film. The draft has now been userfied so that PatGallacher can improve sources and re-create when ready, however a G10 seemed an excessive warning when a lack of sources could have been resolved by a PROD or a more neutral A7 if you felt notability was at question. Mistakes happen, so let's learn from this example and move on.
- I would like to extend an apology to PatGallacher who appears to have attempted to create a valid article in good faith and been rewarded with a claim that they were attacking someone. This sort of mix up can easily happen, please don't be discouraged from continuing to create articles, including those on tricky topics. Drafting in userspace is often a good idea whilst you are still hunting for good quality reliable sources. Thanks Fæ (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I notice that the administrator has now reversed the deletion of this article. I am not too bothered about this on my own behalf, I recognise that as an experienced Wikipedian things don't often go smoothly, but some newbies might be put off if they create articles in good faith and then they find this stroppy warning on their talk page accusing them of BLP violations etc.. PatGallacher (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Harold Wilson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marcia Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
The article Valerie Wise has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article. The nominator also raised the following concern:
- All biographies of living people created after March 18, 2010, must have references.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Greetings. Intentional disambiguation linking is mandated by WP:MOSDAB, WP:INTDABLINK, to remove false positives from lists of links needing repair. The relevant policy, arrived at through extensive discussion and consensus forging, clearly dictates that intentional links to disambiguation pages shall be piped through the "Foo (disambiguation)" redirect so that our disambiguators can go about their job of fixing the 800,000 errant disambig links. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- That strikes me as an odd approach, but I take it people have their reasons. PatGallacher (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- There are two reasons, primarily. First, if a link is to the "Foo (disambiguation)" redirect instead of to the disambiguation page "Foo", then it is immediately apparent that the link is intentional, and does not need to be fixed. Second, where the link is unpiped (as it generally is in disambiguation page see also sections), it alerts the reader that the link will be taking them to another disambiguation page, so they do not expect to be taken to an actual article by that title. Cheers again! bd2412 T 18:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 10
Hi. When you recently edited United Left Alliance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ESB (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Some time ago you reverted one of my edits claiming it was trivial, irrelevant, or digression, why do you think so any particular reason? Thanks for your time!--Cormag100 (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Re
Hi PatGallacher, just letting you know that I asked a question here. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 03:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Edward the Confessor
Re this edit. I was simply undoing a recent edit which had removed that tidbit in the first place. That fact which you called "pedantic" has been in the article since August 2005, so it seems to me that you should have strong consensus for removing it. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 16:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 6
Hi. When you recently edited Gabrielle Blunt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whisky Galore! (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)