All New: 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Orphaned: 500 1001 1501

Follow this link to this page's Table of Contents. You may find a section in it where a message from you, intended for my attention, could fruitfully be placed.
But the end of this page is always a good place to leave messages to me, especially if you start a new section by

• starting a line with two equal signs,
• typing its title, and
• closing the line with two more equal signs.

The material between here and the ToC consists of

• A warning about a highly idiosyncratic aspect of my grammar, and
• Help finding things that were previously on this talk page, but have been moved.

(These are some people's top priority, but most will prefer to jump to the Table of Contents, or at the end.)

Years ago, i got stuck in my brain the idea that there's something wrong about modern English singling out the first-person singular pronoun to be spelled with a capital letter. So i spell it without the capital -- except at the beginning of a sentence, or when i'm not the sole author. If you follow my example, native speakers will just figure you're ignorant of the basics.

(I also say the above, and a bit more on my User page.)

These all concern one area of interest, sometimes orient toward an article or articles with the same subject matter, sometimes otherwise connected

• List of people by name (14 kB, '03 Dec - '04 Mar)
• Dialogue with Adam Carr (14 KB, 2004 Jul 16)
• Jerzy as Administrator (16 kB, '04 Sep- Oct)
• Turkey (often re Armenians) (19 kB,
• Wikipedia Categories (9 kB, 2004 Nov 4)
• Carleton College (9 kB, 2004 Nov 6)
• TRAC Programming language (6.7 kB, 2004 Nov 8)

These are more chronological than my Topical Archives listed in the immediately previous section.

• /Archive Index

You recently deleted a link referring to my name and possible biography.[1]I was slightly offended in the verbage you used in calling my editing attempts an "experiment" and that my "test worked". I would like to inform you that I am very serious in my attempts to create a biograpy concerning myself and should you delete anything in the future that you are more succinct with me and simply inform me that my addition has been deleted. Thank you.--Fg1234567892000 15:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 28, 2007--folowup Your accusations of "vandallism" are compleatly unfounded. I am in no way intending to undermine Wikipedia's validity and find that your claims are compleatly invalid. I can see your point of view if say, maybe I deleted all of an article, but come now--vandallism? You need to reconsider my notability and worthiness--I of all people need to be on Wikipeda. I don't ask for fame or fortune. I don't ask for anything I am involved in to receive any promotion or attention. All I ask for is to be a part of the website.--Fg1234567892000 14:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 2-- Although you may continue to assert your opinion of my work as "vandallism", in my opinion, it is not. However, this is only an opinion and I am sure that many would argue against me. However, I would like to clarify the fact that I do not wish to have an autobiography written--I would like a biograhpy. I am forced to attempt an autobiograhy simply because it's people and administrators, not unlke yourself, who feel that I am not good enough for Wikipedia. I am more than noteworthy, and intend to pursue more acceptable means of meeting my goal. I understand that vandallism is wrong, however, I must say again that I was driven to it by people who constantly barrate me and continously delete any attempt I make at modifying the site. The only reason I continue my crusade is because I want my voice to be heard and I don't want to be put off like some uneducated dumbo who doesn't know what he's doing. I thank you for your constant feedback and critisism, however negitive it may be at times, and I want you to know that I try my hardest to do the best I can.

April 3, 2007 Understood.

Please present at Talk:Pope Stephen whatever evidence you have for your change there and at List of people by name: Step. Don't repeat it, as it merely sows confusion even if you are correct in thinking a change is needed.
--Jerzy•t 02:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All is explained in details on the article Stephen (ephemeral pope). What else must I add to this? Švitrigaila 10:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir,

Thank you for your post in my talk page. I must confess a mistake : after you reorganized the page Talk:Pope Stephen, I have "watched" the differnt subpages you have created, but I forgot to watch the page itself. So, I didn't see you and John Reid have written such long paragraphs and I thought the whole discussion was forgotten. I tried then to relaunch it somewhere else, and it's why I proposed Pope Stephen II for deletion.

Now I must read all what you wrote... I think I have a long night before me...

Švitrigaila 22:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jerzy, I have no idea what exactly you tried to explain on my user talk page [2]

Anyhow,

1. if you think you can improve the common names guideline, and you need to talk about it, please use Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names). It's not as if such things need to be discussed between you and me as only participants in the discussion.
2. I'm not convinced by your digression regarding the English language. Might be so, might be not, I've got no idea. If I write guideline I usually ask a native English wikipedian to check. I can't remember if I asked expicitly for the passage you find at fault, but be assured that enough native English wikipedians read it before you found it to be faultive.
3. I'm going to revert your changes to the common names guideline. I can't see where exactly you improved it: on the contrary I think your version reads less fluently. If you think I shouldn't do that revert, please use the guideline's talk page as suggested above.

--Francis Schonken 22:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jerzy. Thanks for the comments and encouragement. You are right. I am brand new at this, but find it addicting. Since my first article was a biography, I found my way to the WikiProject Biography and followed the "11 Easy Steps to Producing at least a B Article" instructions there. I then visited pages of noteworthy people in similar industries to see how good articles were constructed and learned the formatting conventions that way. Poxie 18:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either someone has changed the speedy deletion policy again or the previous shortcut "vanity" for "Unremarkable people or groups. An article about a real person, group of people, band or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject" has somehow changed. - Skysmith 14:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Vanity" is often used in Afd, yes, and sometimes without justification. I mainly mark clear-cut cases of self-promotion (even in third person) as "vanity" - Skysmith 15:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Fine with me - Skysmith 15:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The delete tags were clearly not invalid and the {{hangon}} text allows for deletion in such cases; criterion R1 (redirect to nonexistent target) applied in this case. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Replied further at my talk page. Thanks for your civility - it makes all the difference in the world. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jerzy. Thanks for letting me know. I've no objection to the edit, and it's a credit to you that you felt the way you did about it. I actually didn't intend the description to be heavy-hitting (I thought it was just the natural way to describe him) but I can see how that kind of thing taken in general can lead to edit wars and overly-verbose descriptions.

But the "extra-neutral" policy for LoPbN does cause some logistical issues. There's no trouble with calling Kabuga a businessman, and that's even sort of connected with his more unsavoury role. But for some of the genocidaires, there's just nothing especially remarkable about them other than that. Any ideas? I guess "Rwandan man" will do. --Saforrest 05:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see the harm of putting images on the LoPbN pages. Errabee 09:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for your comments on my page about the politician. The reason I made the edit was not to upset you, but simply because I have never heard the phrase "American Puerto Rican", specially among those that were born in the island. If a person is Puerto Rican but born outside, specially when it comes down to the United States, they are nicknamed "Newyorrican".

I didn't try to make a point of view. It's simply that you hardly ever hear native Puerto Ricans, even those who vote for the PNP, describe themselves as "American" and even those born in the States usually identify themselves as Puerto Rican, even if they know they are widely known as "Newyorrican" in the island.

I hope this doesn't hinder our friendship. I didn't try to make a point of view.

Thanks for letting me know on my user page and God bless you! Your friend, Antonio Flying Man Martin

replied on my talk page. —Charles P._(Mirv) 06:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nice message on my talk page. I'm not quite sure how that revert managed to not catch all the vandalism. as you can see here [3], it reverted one of that IP address's edits, but not both of them. my only explanation is that i had just put in a new javascript revert button and it didn't seem to be working properly at the time (i didn't actually write that edit summary, it was automatic). It's working fine now, so I'm not sure what the problem was originally. Anyways, thanks for noticing and fixing the problem. I'll be sure to double check next time i make a revert where there are two edits by the same IP address since the last good version. Cheers, --B.U. Football For Life|Talk 12:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerzy, I noticed that our friend is still around and still hasn't grown up. Should you or others want to, feel free to update User:Isomorphic/Minions of the Church. Isomorphic 04:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I almost moved your msgs to your shorter talk page, so we could keep it all together there, but on second thot, let's leave it & keep it all together here; i'll leave you a msg on yr tk to look here.
--Jerzy•t 22:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerzy, thanks for editing & disambiguating Crawford Castle (and all the other related projects you found that I had touched). Please let me know how I attracted your attention so I can get such trusty help again. What was "mock" combat when David Lindsay won "a single (mock) combat with the Englishman Baron Welles"? Also, shouldn't a period be inside an end quote when it occurs at the end of a sentence? It seems to me Americans (who are not trying to put on heirs to be more like their UK brethren) put the period inside the end quote and Brits put it outside. I have several American grammars that insist the period goes within.--Lawnmowerman 07:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thoroughness

  I don't recall making a point of checking everything you did, but i have vague memories of thinking the two dabs you'd mentioned implied other things needing attention. So maybe it amounted to "looking over your shoulder"/"stalking you".
  --Jerzy•t 22:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  

• When LMM met Jerzy:

  _ _ Not much to it. (Glancing at yr contribs, i see that it was on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation that i noticed you. I think i caught your requests bcz i was looking at the page for the first time, and at least scanned the ToC to get oriented. I think most editors would avoid a request for Dab'g help there as off-topic (look at WP:VP for better ideas), so i looked at the content. When i did, the dates suggested the wrong end of the page.) We add msgs at the end of page, as you've now picked up, so it's a shame when someone asks a question at the wrong end (and is likely to go unnoticed). I moved yrs to where they'd be seen by more of our colleagues, without deciding whether i was interested enuf to answer.

  _ _ There's a "don't bite the newcomers" ethic here, but not that strong a "train them" one; on the other hand, the lifeblood of WP is collective editing. In this case your (list-server-style) additions at the top marked you as someone who might (however innocently) have left some messes in the course of your article edits. Indeed, they included such a thing: a suite of the longest disambiguating phrases i've ever seen, which very much needed another editor's attention (for the sake of WP, whether or not for yours). (It sounds like you see why they needed it, but if you don't, please do ask me.)
  --Jerzy•t 22:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  

• Lindsay/Welles:

  I don't remember the exact phrasing of what i found, but when i tried to reconcile it with what you wrote, it seemed clear to me that the event was not what i'd inferred from your editing, but the one-on-one equivalent of a medieval "tourney" or tournament (medieval). I feel sure that you'll quickly find whatever i did if you search on

  Lindsay Welles English chivalry

  (or if necessary use quotes and ORs to put in fuller names for one or both men).
  --Jerzy•t 22:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  

• "to put on heirs " & one way of doing that

  _ _ I actually started my Google test, in order to check my own spelling, before it occurred to me that the logical way "to Wiktionary:put on airs" in genealogy is to put on not heirs, but ancestors who are not your own. Clever of you, but there's of course nothing new under the sun: Genealogy Shoppe for $7.50 each.

  _ _ In any case, i was aware, from a WP discussion, that putting the period outside was a Briticism. Its appeal to me, however, was its being more logical (unless the quote is direct and includes the end of the quoted sentence), and i hope for both increasing familiarity with formal grammars and increased written communication between Brits & Yanks to erode the use of the "always inside" approach. Despite the clear policy that WP is not a specifically American 'pedia, my doing it is still a bit of resistance to WP:MoS. When we get to the point when (to paraphrase the dialog between Dr. Zhivago's commander & his zampolit) the war against lack of content has been won and the one for uniform punctuation can be undertaken, we'll presumably find out if my hope is reasonable.
  --Jerzy•t 22:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  

Jerzy, perhaps you can help me understand something about WP. Why are footnotes used infrequently? I used them in my article on Crawford Castle for an obvious reason - I have no personal knowledge of those events and wanted everyone to know where I got the information in case I was in error or to further someone else's research effort. In addition, I much appreciate the work you did, but I do not know where your information comes from. I now know (or think I know) that there was some "mock" battle but don't know where you have that from. I also know something about John de Welles, 5th Baron Welles (1352–1421) but have no idea where you got that either. Bibliographic references should not be good enough for the WK project, we need footnotes. Clearly there are many recurring phrases in WP that are lifted directly from some other published text (and I want to know precidely where). Best regards, --Lawnmowerman 08:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Dearth of footnotes

  _ _ Y're probably right, and WP is probably wrong (-- or at least in a stage that will eventually have to pass). In my casual opinion, there's more urgency being given, except in specially intense controversies, to increasing coverage of topics. That doesn't necessarily mean that any individual has decided to put off proving the verifiability of what they are satisfied is verifiable, in favor of more, longer, and more diverse articles (tho i conjecture that many have done so, to varying degrees).

  _ _ I've been known to joke about my assignment editor, and the underlying truth is that WP thrives on editors working on what gives them a kick. Individual editors' commitments to meeting the overall goals that are routinely attributed to the project as a whole may actually be much less significant. That means that we do some prohibiting, and more of discouraging, but in very few cases to we say "Yes, A is good, but if you don't do B to complement it, you're a bad colleague." The strongest exception i can think of is the "code of honor" about bypassing the Dab you create in everything that lks to it. I tried doing that for battery in my first month or so, and have pretty much not bothered since. (Note that this is distinct from something much more important, bypassing the double redirects you create in a move, including a move needed to set up a Dab.) In fact i think discussion of dbl-rdr bots at Wikipedia:Double redirects may explain my failure to find the "code of honor" language; i may still be apologizing for acts that are the subject of an amnesty.
  --Jerzy•t 22:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  

• Welles data (an example for my point as well)

  _ _ One reason i didn't bother to record my source was that i didn't have much trouble finding it. If you're good with Google (or as, probably, you become so as you work on WP), here's the only info from me that will help you: i put a high priority on getting a date for Welles, to confirm my suspicion that that paragraph described a later period from that of the capture of the castle: you know what info i was working from (by being more familiar than i with the last revision before i started), so you're closer to finding the same source that i did than i am to re-finding it.

  _ _ I'm not very comfortable with the footnote scheme, and hope that if it becomes more used, there'll be a switch and a preference setting for "hide footnotes", as there already is for the ToC on pages with enuf sections. But in any case, you like them and i can't see anything wrong your adding more, e.g. after using my results to help you find, more quickly, the same support i found, or its equivalent.
  --Jerzy•t 22:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  

Being a lawyer, I thought I was good for something (e.g., research, writing) but not I see I am not nearly as good as I thought. I really need your help retracing the steps you went through to find the dates and the "mock" you added to the following sentence in the Crawford Castle article - "In 1398, Robert II gave the castle and the title of Earl of Crawford to David Lindsay, who had won great praise in 1390 for bravery in single (mock) combat with the Englishman Baron Welles." I have now spent almost 2 hours at work (I bill $320 hour) trying to figure out where you got that information on google using pre and post edit information and still have not found it. That doesn't mean you shouldn't make me keep trying but I am intrigued at how and where you found that information. Can you take a few moments to do either or both of the following, the first being the quickest but the latter being the more important: (i) send me the link to where that info comes from, and/or (ii) tell me how you found it. Best regards, --Lawnmowerman 15:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More to come, but in the spirit of chivalric preening, i wanted to show a quick result (despite the dentist's receptionist calling to interrupt) at 16:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC):

Hit #3 of the search i suggested looked promising so i clicked on it. It doesn't seem to be one i saw before; in any case i MS-IE searched within the page, for chival, IIRC, & landed in this 'graph, with more info than i saw before:

It was Sir Alexander Lindsay of Glenesk who, during John of Gaunt’s invasion of Scotland, attacked and put to the sword the crew of one of the English ships which had landed above Queen’s Ferry, and his son, Sir David, was one of the most famous knights of his time. It was he who rode the famous course at the tournament at London Bridge in May, 1390. John, Lord Welles, the English ambassador, we are told, had at a solemn banquet ended a discussion of doughty deeds with the declaration: "Let words have no place; if you know not the chivalry and valiant deeds of Englishmen, appoint me a day and place where you list and you shall have experience." Sir David Lindsay accepted the challenge, and Lord Welles appointed London Bridge as the place of trial. At the first course, though Lord Welles’ spear was broken on his helmet, Lindsay kept his seat, at which the crowd cried out that, contrary to the laws of arms, he was bound to his saddle. Upon this he dismounted, mounted again without help, and in the third course threw his opponent to the ground. Another of Sir David Lindsay’s exploits, which ended less happily was the encounter with the Highland marauders under Duncan Stewart, son of the Wolf of Badenoch, at Gasklune, in which many of the gentry of Angus were slain and Sir David himself was grievously wounded, and narrowly escaped. Sir David, married Elizabeth, daughter of King Robert III., and in 1398 was raised to the peerage as Earl of Crawford.

I'll see if i can come up with a more direct answer to yr question, tho.

--Jerzy•t 16:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• _ _ OK, i'm pretty sure that i read hit #2, & maybe #3, from searching with the search spec

"David Lindsay" Baron Welles

_ _ I either reconstructed that search (the likely case), or hit on another with similar results, by getting close enuf & catching a little luck. My method was rereading your revision that i started from, which i picked out from the page history (by clicking on the " 15:04, 8 March 2006" link). I asked myself "What search would i do in this situation?", and knowing myself reasonably well, decided that the exact name of Lindsay should be expected, since his title seems to have come later, but that i couldn't count on "Baron" immediately preceding "Welles", which is why i used no more quotes in the search spec.

_ _ Hit #2 seems to be one of the first i succeeded with, and i may have been smarter the first time in searching at an early point for "1390" since it appeared in the extract. (This time, i don't understand why some of the in-page searches i tried failed, but never mind.) That gave me

DAVID LINDSAY, 9th Feudal Lord of Crawford, b ca 1360, d 1406 (or perhaps 1412), fought famous duel in 1390 with JOHN 5th Baron WELLES on London Bridge, created 1st Earl of CRAWFORD, m ELIZABETH (CATHERINE) STUART, dau of King ROBERT II (see under Scotland, Kings, for ancestors)

-- enuf to satisfy me that i had the right encounter.

_ _ In hit #3, my successful search this time was for "lost" within the page, which got me to

At a banquet in Edinburgh and presumably after too much alcohol he issued as Champion of England the challenge: “Let words have no place; if ye know not the Chivalry and Valiant deeds of Englishmen; appoint me a day and a place where ye list, and ye shall have experience”. This resulted in a memorable jount on London Bridge the following St George’s Day, 23rd April 1390, in which he lost to DAVID LINDSAY, afterwards 1st Earl of Crawford

(I don't recall reading about the alcohol, perhaps just bcz of skimming. On the other hand, i know my research in preparation for editing produced something with "third course" in it, that i haven't since found again, so i'm not sure i read this one then.)

_ _ (The word "mock" was my own paraphrase, and hope i didn't lead you to assume otherwise.)

_ _ I gave you bad advice bcz i remembered "the Chivalry and Valiant deeds of Englishmen" as "English Chivalry and [something]". Sorry about that. (Hmm, or what i recalled was not directly from there: i thot i recalled "chivalry" being much more explicitly stated as the purpose, and not just of the word being at the inception of it, but that comes to just speculation, as i'm not turning up any hits that support it, after significant effort.)

_ _ So: i haven't studied your wording carefully enough to know whether your skills fell short, or i doomed your efforts by trusting my memory about the exact word "English". My apology in any case, and i hope your $640 of effort produced some valuable experience. (The possibility receiving bills in the event of my behaving tortiously was not one of my reasons for being pseudonymous on WP, but.... [wink])

_ _ I'm gladder for that exercise than i expected; i think i implied "the same sources can always be easily found again", but the gaps in my second try suggest i've been overconfident.
--Jerzy•t 18:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, having knowledge, it is impossible to go backward, but I don't recall coming up with your hits 2 and 3 at all in my searches. Which made me think google doesn't produce the same results in every country, but I tried it here in the US and it does. Perhaps I was too specific in my searches. I don't know where you're from but I suspect the UK because of your ". usage and because you have the kind of mind that wrote the OED. In any case, I don't know how you would have known to search for "chival" or "English" or where you came up with "the Chivalry and Valiant deeds of Englishmen." I also don't know if I would have been as tenacious. Thanks for the education. Have you read The Professor and the Madman? Come to think of it, the OED was perhaps the first publication assembled from free contributions, much like WP, except without the help of computers, just scraps of paper sent in from all over England. The analogy stops there as the free will contributions were then sold to the public in the form of the OED.--Lawnmowerman 20:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may also support the point that footnotes are needed in WP (as you allude to above). If we want to make all human knowledge accessible, we need footnotes. Knowledge is not knowledge unless it can be verified and sources weighed for persuasiveness. WP should not be a place to regurgitate and cut and pase all hearsay on the web. The article for Crawford Castle already included a cite to Blaeu Atlas of Scotland, 1654 which I am confident only recently became available on the web in digital form. Now, I can make reference to "ANCIENT ANCESTORS with MODERN DESCENDANTS (7th Edition)" at www.pcug.org.au/~ronwells/index.htm but would still like to know where he got his information - he doesn't even have a footnote! :-) I am now quite aware that my searches must be done very carefully to avoid queering results. Curious - How long did it take you to find the information on the duel and edit Crawford Castle?

• OED:

No, not read, but heard of the bk several times, so i appreciate the reference. Not Brit, but Yank, and i question your cultural determinism. In fact it makes you sound Latin American to me. Whoops!

Chival:

_ _ Sorry to be obscure. You asked where i found it was a tournament or mini-tournament, and i couldn't remember. But i did (mis-?)remember a phrase like "for the sake of English chivalry and honor", and felt sure you'd find the same source by including the two words "English" and "chivalry" along with appropriate names in yr Google search.

_ _ (Note that didn't say search, or shouldn't have, for "chival" in Google, bcz Google seldom finds whole words when a portion of the word is used as a key. I am unsurprised when it's asked for "artistry" and finds "artistic" (neither word part of the other, but two standard words known to have closely related meanings): Google apprently tries to exploit such relationships of meaning. I have never seen Google find a real word when i specified a non-word as a key -- except in cases where it detects a spelling error, and in that case, it asks whether meant "trivial" when i typed "trival", before serving up the hits on it.

_ _ (On the other hand, once i was viewing a very long page, i didn't want to scan it by eye and MS IE is not smart enuf to equate chivalic, chivalry, and chivalrous, but it will find any of the three for the key "chival".)

_ _ "The Chivalry and Valiant deeds of Englishmen" was a surprise to me, since i was so confident of a different thrust to the passage with "chivalry" in it. I think i retain a relatively large amount of detail, but not as much as i tend to imagine that i do.

Time spent searching: To answer that beyond "more than i expected", i'd have to look back at my "user contributions" log, which other users can also do re me. I'm not sure it will have useful info, but it could be a valuable exercise to see what you could deduce about that search.
--Jerzy•t 08:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you replace the contents with List of people by name: Gar with those of List of people by name: Gam-Gaq? What does your cryptic acronymic edit summary mean? JIP | Talk 08:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerzy, I need some help. First, where do I go to request help with a disambiguation? Here's where I'm at. I wanted to create a page for CANMORE - its a database maintained by The Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland but there was a page redirecting me to Canmore, Alberta - a city. I deleted the info on the redirect page but can't seem to get rid of the page itself. Can't create the CANMORE database page til I hear from you. Thanks --Lawnmowerman 20:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• _ _ I'm inferring that your worry was that since typing "CANMORE" or "canmore" takes you to Canmore, the existence of that page was a problem. The deletion of Rdrs is rare, largely on the premise that "if someone thought it was useful",

• it's likely to be bcz they tried getting to something by typing it in, and it would have been useful to them, and
• even if they had some other reason for expecting it to be useful to someone, they're probably right even if others have trouble seeing that usefulness.

Also because Rdrs both get copied by other sites and become hits on search engines; both will lead people to try to use them on WP (in their old context), so they shouldn't disappear.

_ _ I put a Dab "on top" of the old Rdr; the dab does the Rdr's job (except for the automatic transfer part), but gives the choice of your sense as well. You could have done the same, but it sounds like you wanted a different title, perhaps CANMORE, for the dab.

_ _ CANMORE can be a rdr to the Dab, or a rdr to the article you want to write, or can be the article itself. If it's a rdr to the Dab, i doubt it accomplishes anything; if it's a Rdr to the article, it may have a bad effect and have to go thru the Dab; if it's the article, it may need a top-of-page Dab line to the town (but not to the Dab unless the Dab gets more than these two entries). (However, me fine Scotiophile, be aware that the capital D inside MacDonald means that Macdonald is needed as a redirect to MacDonald even tho the obvious rdr at kevin stewart would serve no purpose.)

_ _ I put a rd lk into the rdr i made. (I hope that's not the title of the article; forget legal names: WP:MOS calls for common names, and a bad guess at the common name is far better than a name that long.)

_ _ I may be missing the point of your question; if so write again.
--Jerzy•t 23:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Dab is not a form of redirect, as you seem to assume in yr edit summarized as "Redirect bypass from William Burges to William Burges (architect) using popups". If yr popups enforced that summary, please don't use that tool in that way, and tell me where you got it so i know which toolmaker to complain to. Plz don't confuse your colleagues with false terminology.
--Jerzy•t 06:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved William Burges to William Burges (architect) in order to make room for a disambiguation page. The act of moving created a redirect from William Burges to William Burges (architect). Before I overwrote the redirect with a disambiguation page, I used popups to bypass the redirect. It was convenient to use the tool in that way, and the summary was perfectly reasonable. Snottygobble 11:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jezy. I also left this question on Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories. I have an idea and was hoping someone could give me some guidance on whther its a good one, whether its permitted in WP, and if so, tips on how to do it. I have recently begun helping my children write some articles and stubs on WP. I would like to create a notation for articles that denote them (or flags them, if you prefer) as having been written by a "young author." I see WP as a fantastic way to educate my children in significant ways and hope perhaps the movement will catch on. In connection with the effort, I would like to have a special page for the "young authors project" etc. I would define young authors in some very generic way so as to protect identities. What do you think? Do you have any tips on how to do this or an "administrator" that would be particularly knowledgeable about how to do this? Thanks in advance for your help. --Lawnmowerman 14:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put your response here as well as on my talk page:

_ _ Not remotely feasible -- in contrast with your concern abt documentation, which merely has no clear path to reality, even tho you may help it take place as the nature of WP evolves.
_ _ I recommend you concentrate more on studying WP documentation & looking at how experienced editors handle the situations you encounter in yr own editing. (In particular cases, recognize them by looking at least at their earliest contribution (for the date), and perhaps learn to use the edit-count tool tho you should take the cautions & reservations seriously; there are also 2K+ of experienced eds listed at WP:1000.)
_ _ In the long run you may find a role in improving verifiability standards, but Young Authors is the smoking gun re what was already my opinion. (That doesn't make me prescient; it's virtually inevitable for someone with so little experience in this unique environment.) Namely, you have far too little insight into the WP process to soon have any role in the kind of ambitions that you're feeling about the future of the project. And at this point neither you nor i has the remotest idea of what your long-term prospects for that are. But i hope you'll stick around and find out.
--Jerzy•t 15:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your unfortunate response to my question is truly disappointing. Please consider Cactus.man's response as more appropriate and helpful. You should also consider a role in life that limits your contact with people. Your arrogance is a black mark on the WP community. Though I have appreciated your edits and help in the past, you are clearly an editor that should be marginalized. You are the type I hoped not to find in WP, but unfortunately those who exaggerate their own worth are everywhere, even in the best of communities. Your value may lie in trying not to author articles, but sticking to the most banal aspects of the project. My opinion of you should of course have no bearing on your continued efforts, as yours of mine will not. I hope you will keep trying to make a meaningful contribution to life. Your editing skills are outstanding but you are deficient in the kind of character that will make you a success in life and give you a meaningful legacy. Best regards, --Lawnmowerman 16:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry for late responding. If your kind offer to block any potential use of the Buldozer username, I would appreciate this. Re: John Fisher descripions, if that has nort been corrected yet, I'll do it right away. Many tahnks for your valuable advice, offer and comment. Buldożer 10:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits were certainly not mine. Well, OK, let's leave that as it is. Many thanks for your interest and help, but it looks that we just can't do anything with it. Cheers, Buldożer 21:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for moving Islamofascism (term) to Islamofascism. You've made my day. -Silence 03:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, should this article really be called Peter Abélard? Pierre Abélard, fine. Peter Abelard, also OK (I'm sure the MoS tells us which). But Germanic first name, French second? Uh-uh. Do you mind if I fix this? Cheers, JackyR 21:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ As a matter of mechanics, it looks like anyone can make a move back to Pierre Abélard, but it may take an admin to get it to Peter Abelard.

_ _ I don't find your reasoning conclusive: i think there is a greater tendency to anglicize given names than surnames, and w/in WP, i think the Zürich debate shows we don't think a dicritical mark makes a name anywhere near as foreign as a foreign-language spelling does. But i'm not settling on any strong opinion.

_ _ Bear in mind also that like Confucius and [[Copernicus], his English-language familiarity is probably mediated via Latin -- not sure which of the three sides of the argument that leans toward.

_ _ You might want to consult with User:Ceyockey, whose LoPbN edit led to mine there, and thence to the move you are concerned about; my guess, based on their edit, is that they'll probably agree with you. Also, consider some Google tests restricted to English-language sites, so at least you'll be in a position to anticipate criticism from others who may feel more strongly about it than i.
--Jerzy•t 04:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. Cheers, JackyR 18:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And there. Cheers, JackyR 23:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking over the "short pages" list, and I see that User:EGGS has tried to nominate some pages for deletion. They seem to have no content, so why do they need to still exist? Thanks, Ardric47 06:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Whatever happened to assuming good faith!? Regardless of your personal suspicions, bandying phrases like "disingenuous", "troll" and "nationalist PoV vandal" around are very unlikely to achieve anything, and I resent your using them.

Getting back to the main point, though: insisting on keeping the listing at "Owen Glendower" instead of "Owain Glyndŵr" is untenable, I think, since the article is at Owain Glyndŵr, and which is also the name used almost universally these days (much has changed since Shakespeare's time). Having a duplicate listing might be tolerable, but if everyone were listed at every possible spelling of their name, the list could get very cluttered indeed (e.g. Shakespeare, Shakspear, Shaxpir, etc.). I assumed there was one listing per person, and moved "Glendower" to "Glyndŵr". I thought you must have overlooked the second copy when you reinstated the "Glendower" listing. There must be, at least, a listing at "Glyndŵr"; any further spellings are optional. That said, the current situation is fine by me. --Stemonitis 06:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, shit happens. I did look into some recent history, but recent users like AndriuZ (talk · contribs) were not at all vandals. Fortunately there are many of us here. `'mikka (t) 20:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, don't you find that having this huge name list in two places leads to troubles? I suggest to leave it only in the "List of..." article. `'mikka (t) 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For fixing that dab page Just Like That! JackyR 21:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd slowly worked out that the "Carr" page must have been the trigger. Deleting the history is not offered to non-Admins, so it's great to know this is one of your missions: I may call on you in future! Thanks again, JackyR 14:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you moved the disambiguation page to Nin proper, but what happened to the article on the Croatian town? It isn't linked and I can't seem to find it. --AHrvojic 03:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! For the search tips as well :) --AHrvojic 12:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you may like to check Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism. Spam is vandalism. Henry^Flower 11:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want to wade through a hundred spam edits and weed out the spam part, more power to you. I'm not that fluffy. Henry^Flower 12:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for speaking somewhat loosely. My concern however, is not with the effectiveness per se of talk page spam, as with its temptingness. Since it works (or rather, since they think it works) it will happen if we allow it, so we shouldn't allow it. If you're volunteering to lovingly edit any future talk page spam, then I'll happily point you towards it rather than dealing with it myself. Henry^Flower 10:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_2#bottom_line - I have written an answer. Yes, a little bit late, but if you're interested. -- Amtiss, SNAFU ? 16:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. Doing "speeling petrol" on 'descendents' and variants (like 'decedents' !) I came across some templates you were (are?) experimenting with (I think you noted a problem with too many names on your user page). Anyway, if you get back to it, the word is 'descendants'. One example I found was Template:List of people Cons descendents.

And if you might get irritated at the nit-picking, take a look at the link from my user page to Simple. I'm amazed anyone can learn English. Its tu mush, y'no? Shenme 01:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Permanently? You're better than me then. I edit with www.dictionary.com open at all times! ;-) (I know when to stop correcting misspellings for the night, when even www.dictionary.com isn't enough reassurance as to what is 'correct'. So many possibilities ...) Shenme 01:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the red link deletions on the LoPbN. I was merely following the general "rule" of most Wiki compendiums of people. I understand your point. However, with "red" links there is also the issue of people vandalizing the page and adding people who are not the least bit notable - as a few of the names I deleted were (i.e. "Joe So and So (born 1987), student and musician"). It becomes rather difficult on such large lists if there is not a biography to sort out who is indeed noteworthy and who is not if there is no reference.

Also, these lists tend to become extremely cumbersome, with people adding nearly everyone who ever existed who may have marginal ties to the Wiki subject. But, I do understand your point and will only delete names in that section that I am sure are non-notables or vandals. Sorry, once again. I also did add a number of names of individuals with Wiki bios to the list. Cheers. ExRat 07:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jerzy, I'm about to do that stub about the astronomer John Carroll. All the refs I can find for him call him "John Carroll", rather than "John A Carroll": do you remember where you got the format of his name? (I suspect it's just a US back-formation from his full name, in which case I'll entitle the article by the form he would have used himself, ie no "A".

Btw, I'm hoping to make a page move: Margaret Rumer Godden to Rumer Godden, which is the name she published under (and was generally known by, as far as I can tell). The latter is currently a redirect to the former: what should I do? Many thanks, oh sage one... JackyR 22:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ Hopefully you're already aware that WP autobiographical articles are held to especially high standards. I confined myself to very routine chgs to yours, but there may be some of that "merciless editing" coming up, from others who undertake judging notability and relevance more fluently than i -- perhaps even from comedy fans. But i suppose you're used to hecklers. [grin] _ _ Let me add to your welcome, to what i hope will be a broader role as a colleague here. --Jerzy•t 14:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcome. I'm addicted. At least with WP I can add myself to the heckler chorus!!! :P

"Basil White sucks" should be cleaned up to conform to a higher standard of suck. basilwhite 15:05, 03 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we landed in the same place, which I think is good -- I have learned to be meticulous about checking referring pages when creating new pages (especially for names). A question, however -- since you deleted the original article John Herbert, why did you re-create it instead of just restoring it? Restoring seems a nice solution that doesn't destroy edit history. Thanks, Cleduc 00:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. You'll note the only edit I've made to the article was to remove the link to Brandon Crisp. It seemed like a clear vanity edit by an anonymous IP. The edit summary was mainly to avoid a lengthy explanation of notability to the IP involved. I am not about to undertake a campaign to remove redlinks :-) Gwernol 05:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right of course, my edit summary should have been more explicit. I'll keep that in mind for the future. Thanks for the advice, Gwernol 15:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template syntax of separating words of a user's name as different parameters has been obsoleted by a new function called {{urlencode:}}.

Example: {{urlencode:Slobodan Milošević}}

Produces: Slobodan+Milo%C5%A1evi%C4%87

In addition to converting exotic letters, it also changes spaces into "+", which is interpreted the same as an underscore (a literal plus sign becomes "%2B"). — May. 26, '06 [10:04] <freak|>

Wow, I'd never seen that page before (WP:TPFR), but it looks like a bot task more than anything. It would be relatively easy to create a bot to propose possible ([[Redirect]] → [&91;Target]]) pairs on some sandbox page, so that a human could go through and create the ones that actually make sense, if I interpret the purpose of that page correctly. I'll take a closer look at it tomorrow. I'm going to sleep now. — May. 26, '06 [10:23] <freak|>

Hi Jerzy, this is regarding your recent renaming. I decided to set up a vote to move it back, and I don't want to do it behind your back. Please reconsider. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done all the T pages with mergenames. And didn't make many changes for the last dozen or so - it even handles the non-heading separators I dislike. Now I'm going to meditate on the result for a while (and do some editorial cleanup / manual editing) before figuring out what to do next. --Alvestrand 15:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already thot this was great, before i realized how far you'd gone. I'll be continuing to try to catch up with the subdividing of pages and sections as demanded by the wealth of remedies to prior neglect that you've provided. As to what i call the non-section headings, i've been meditating, & experimenting with larger groups at the deepest level, which may or may not strike you as addressing the aspects of your objections that i hadn't tried to address before. Thanks!
--Jerzy•t 23:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had read all the relevant sections for testing the validity of creating a page, and I would like to dispute your contention that J Brill is a worthy deletion candidate. What I am continuing to build sources of material on John Brill and his Bardia Mural. With the publication of the letter from his mother and his being referred to in the Daily Mirror, I believed I had proven "broad interest" and showing the other websites that show tours to his Mural as well as interest in him and his mural I thought the case was proven. Can you help me understand what I missed. My fear is that this is the thin end of the wedge the next step will be to have the Bardia Mural Page proposed for deletion.

Libya is only just reopened as tourist destination so in terms of "previous potential" interest in John and his Murak, there cannot have been any.

I am not a relative of Mr Brill and have no intent to try and promote him. My goal is a simple one to help enable Wikipedia to be the most usefull complete Web Source of Knowledge.

What are the reasons for your proposed deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.0.96.1 (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response in progress, plz watch this space in a few minutes.
--Jerzy•t 17:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ Hi. I confess to not having read more than the bio; i'm not sure whether that was neglect on my part or if you failed to lk to it.

_ _ Please register as a WP user and use your ID whenever you edit, and even until you do, please sign with --~~~~. Have you gone thru the tutorial?

_ _ If you don't know how remove the ProD markup, leave me a lk to the article, in this section, and i will do so while we talk abt it, in order to take off the time pressure. You may be right; i have been wrong before. More than once, actually. [wink]

_ _ Re "[your] fear is that...", yes, i'll be surprised if the two articles don't survive or fall together (possibly surviving together by being merged).
--Jerzy•t 17:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what's up? I thought I was being a good little Wikipedian by reading and heeding the recommendations spelled out in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes), and duly converted many of my previous edits painstakingly to include the en dash. Then you come along and get rid of the "edit-impeding n-dashes" on List of people by name: Hua-Huf. Is this a new movement among some editors, or is it just a personal preference? -- Muffuletta 07:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 04:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no, they are the the same. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=candelabra%20. doens't make a difference to me.
Jon513 16:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, my mistake, you are right.
Jon513 16:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that the error is common enuf to be considered an alternative singular form. Even in that light, i think the second set of scenarios is preferable:

1. Candelabra

   Semi-informed user: "Ignorant fucks!"

   Uninformed user (and thoroughly informed user, having thot thru fact that usage rather than origin defines language): no reaction

2. Candelabrum

   Semi-informed user: no reaction

   Uninformed user (and thoroughly informed user, having thot thru fact that usage rather than origin defines language): "Pretentious fucks!"

... because IMO we do enuf to counter the stereotype that we are pretentious (and in any case you have to do a bit preten-ding to be infallible anyway, in striving for accuracy), but we can never do enough to overcome the stereotype that that we are ignorant.
--Jerzy•t 16:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the informative comments to my talk page, as well as your contributions to the talmud/tractate issue.
I think that LoPbN is an important project, and so I've been contributing to it in spurts. In terms of formatting, I've tried to follow your lead, since you obviously have some seniority in the project. I did take a look at the various talk pages for LoPbN, but they are so very long that I guess I didn't have the patience to sift through them all. I appreciate your clarifications on my talk page, which I'll try to keep in mind in future edits. --Eliyak T·C 06:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a template for LoPbN name entries. My main motivation for it was the annoyance involved in copying large numbers of names twice so that they show up correctly (last name first). I thought I'd get your approval before actually using it in the list --Eliyak T·C 22:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I made a mistake again. Sorry! --Sangak12:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you find support in the Dab documentation for a ToP Dab on Dee L. Brown, pls let me know. (For the sake of fixing my understand, or fixing the documentation.) My argument is that people who want Dee L. Brown will go to Dee Brown but not (to any extent worth the clutter) the reverse. Thus Dee Brown must be a Dab or have a ToP Dab, but Dee L. Brown may have one only it if is to help reach other people named "Dee L. Brown" (including e.g. Dee Lamont Brown).
--Jerzy•t 20:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there is more than one person whose name could be entered as "Dee L. Brown", then a top dab is a good idea in my view. This does appear to be the case, Dee Brown (football) has a middle inital of L. for example, and, even ignoring that one, by having the dab in, if another Dee Brown is added with a middle inital L, the article does not need to be changed. Also, if someone hits the article via random article and recognises the name, but not the person, it's useful to have the dab to go to the main name page. All in all, there are more reasons to have the top dab link, then not to have it, so I'd suggest putting it back in. Regards, MartinRe 22:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ Thank you for the additional information, which indeed calls for a ToP Dab, but a more specific one than the one i removed. Dabs are too distracting to be used in the way your second argument implies.

_ _ If you care to read up on the Dab-related portions of the WP:MOS, WP:MOSDAB and Wikipedia:Disambiguation are the bulk, and perhaps all of it. I have the strong impression that the mutually-linked example that starts Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Top links is logically inconsistent with the predominant (main page dab) practice, and is seldom complied with. I'll be collecting examples of compliance with it as i run across them, and if you or i come up with enuf of them, i'll start a discussion to change the guideline. Thanks again,
--Jerzy•t 23:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with all the MoS articles, but none of them say much about top links on actual articles (mostly concentrating on the format of Dab pages themselves). However, as a guideline, dab headers are there to reduce confusion if someone reaches that page when expecting to get something else. In many cases, where the article title includes a disambig, it's unnecessary (e.g. Dee Brown (novelist)) but where the name is not disambiged with a "+ (topic)" I suggest a link to the main page so I still think the top dab dab should be to "dee brown", and not just the one "dee L brown" we know about - for all we know Dee Brown (novelist) or Dee Brown (Illini) could also have a middle inital of L. Or in two weeks time, someone else could add another Dee (L) brown, and we should not expect them to have to edit every other dee brown to do so, just the dab page. Regards, MartinRe 23:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is some discussion currently taking place about lists of people by surname on the surname pages at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Hndis needs its own Manual, if you are interested.
-- JHunterJ 12:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ Thanks for the heads up. I fully expect to be interested.

_ _ BTW, i endorse the work you describe in 2nd 'graph on yr user page. Drafted before my AfD cmts and thus Charles's cmt, but saved only now; out of sequencing protocol for clarity.
--Jerzy•t 17:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, i'm mystified as to how that 'graph's sentiment led you to the AfD that i've since read and commented on. What could LoPbN have to do with why "{{Hndis}} for human names" "reads the way it does"? Or what other part of WP:MOSDAB did you have in mind and why?
--Jerzy•t 20:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Thanks for the ping -- I had indeed missed this second response.) A few separate issues. I was going through the given names category, and I followed Alan to the Allen surname page. Removing the entries there that did not follow WP:MOSDAB (that weren't for people who were known by just Allen) would have emptied the page except for the statement like "Allen is a surname," and rather than turn it into a Wiktionary entry, it seemed like it should just be deleted. Little did I know.... LOPBN doesn't have to do with the template; my comment on the {{Hndis}} template was made because it says that the pages might otherwise share the same title, which is clearly not the case: Whoopi Goldberg would never have had Johnson as an article title; an extreme example, but it holds for anyone not known by one name. -- JHunterJ 12:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ First, tnx for yr good catch w/ "(and move one of your signatures up?)". I won't bore you with the dumb explanation.

_ _ Now i finally take your point, and yr analysis of the applicability of that MoS to removing the names is sound. IMO, tho, the problem lies in our unfortunate failure to get the MoS in step with well-established and effective practice, rather than in failure to comply: attention during drafting was mostly on more contentious issues, and that aspect got neglected & its undesirable wording went uncontested. While my priorities probably preclude my diving into negotiating that aspect of the MoS, my view is that use of the See-also section permits Dabs to do useful things by way of navigation, that are not properly part of Dab'n, and do so without impairing the Dab'n, bcz they are down there at the bottom. (It's important to add that this is in contrast to info on the subject, especially above the entries, or as part of the entries, that is not typically useful in Dab'g: it is bad bcz it interferes with navigation. Thus i'd like to see

1. the description of "See also" widened,
2. the Dab notice put just above the "See also" heading, and in fact, i think,
3. {{Disambig}} renamed to {{Dab-noSa}} with the new {{Disambig}} having the heading markup & a sentence, built in after the current message, something like

   While the following topics could not bear the title that this page disambiguates, they may nevertheless include the article(s) most sought by some readers who reach this page.

If you think doing so will help, please feel free to copy this 'graph into the discussion, and mention me as source; just include this disclaimer & bear in mind that i will not feel the same obligation to defend it or expound further that i might, if i had been the one to post it elsewhere.
--Jerzy•t 16:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another solution (and one I like, naturally) would be to use a new, different template for surname disambiguation. {{Hndis}} puts the article into Category: Lists of ambiguous human names, but these articles should be in Category: Surnames instead. So maybe {{Surnamedis}}?
--JHunterJ 18:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? is there more than one person named Sur-nam-edis? [wink] But seriously, as a name change it sounds like another rarified quibble; you may want to focus, in presenting this to those who unlike me are engaged with the issue in an ongoing way, on what difference you think that name will make in the benefits that users get.
--Jerzy•t 22:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rarified quibble? I thought would just serve the same purpose as making a new dab-nosa -- the descriptions for the two types would match the articles they're applied to. -- JHunterJ 00:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of your comments at the AfD (helpful, thx) you might possibly be interested that software support for surnames is part of my 'platform' for the Board elections (meta:User:Charles Matthews/WMF Board Election 2006, Anthere's final question 'Vision', #3 out of 5 things I'd want to undertake).
-- Charles Matthews 16:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've said still more (but possibly less helpful, i guess) on the AfD page since, most of it writ before your note. We've got plenty to talk abt, mostly starting in 3 days. I'm delaying further comment to collect hard copy of the relevant materials to read, as it were, by candlelight, in the interim. Fascinating; thanks; if i end up moved to endorse you, would you like me to coordinate with you in maximizing the benefit to your campaign?
--Jerzy•t 17:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omigod - someone who appears to want me elected, maybe. Not sure this was part of the plan. Tell you what - it would do no harm at all to get this type of concrete issue discussed, rather than airy generalities. Charles Matthews 21:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just say that you're the first one who's brought my interest to the race this time. I 'm back early due to lousy weather, & will have a couple of substantial responses of my own to the Allen discussion that happen to bear on new support for efficiency re person-entries.
--Jerzy•t 19:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I was removing those ToCs directives so that one does not need to scroll down for every other page esp. when there are only a couple of entries. I understand the presence of empty pages, but felt that the ToC dirctive is unnecessary (because I think that wikipedia adds a ToC automatically when the number of sections increases beyond certain number). Anyhow it doesn't make a significant difference and I will try to aviod that next time. YashKochar 05:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you by chance mean that WP:V is not part of WP:PROD instead of WP:CSD? I didn't mention verifiability in the speedy delete nom; I just used {{db-group}}. I realize now that I shouldn't have put it in the {{prod}} tag, but I was ennumerating some of the many issues with the article (and was admittedly frustrated that the speedy tag was removed). I'll be more careful in the future. Thanks! -- Merope 02:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I looked it over and spent some time trying to find proof of his notabilty and couldn't but with two others thinking he might I decided to prod it. If I'd seen it before the speedy was on I would have probably deleted and then waited for someone to yell at me (again). Sorry I couldn't give you better news. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I usually have no problem in deleting stuff and it made me feel bad to have to keep that for a few days. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For this. Best. notafish }<';> 11:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reference to "The Naylor Sonnets"" in the article on James Naylor. However the article on Kenneth Boulding doesn't mention his poetic and creative side, or his remarkable wife. Hope someone can do something about that!Vernon White 22:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Jerzy, I must thank you. My edits concerning the three painters was - simply put - wrong. I'm pleased that this error was caught. I've reverted. Again, my thanks. Victoriagirl 16:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was the version I worked on September 21, 2006. No vandalism, no weasel words, sourcing, and no copyright violations. This edit war with Lmz00 has gotten to a point where I refuse to answer to the user. The user cannont resolve this dispute without using inactive comments toward myself and others. It's just simplified just to compromise a fair look at the article without using too many links and notable likeness. And for the user to use 50 instead of 50 Cent, that just another way of saying a number said this instead of a rapper. Just look at the current version. The last time I edit this article was about at least a week ago. I asked for a protection to inactive users who choose not to compromise, and refuse to work as a community. I hope this version (I left above in the link) is used on this article.

This is the current version that User Lmz00 left after I ceased the edit war. And yes, this is what is on the article (and you can decide)!

Multiple use of name of Sean Combs. Here the list of words, Diddy, Puffy, P. Diddy, Combs, Sean "Puffy Combs is located throughout the whole article. All I suggested was to used was mogul or rapper, to cease the constant use of the person's name. (Inproper use of proper names)!

Mase still claimed the status of a pastor. The album contained no curse words and was not derogatory in any way towards females. (Weasel words)!

'50 was in talks with Diddy to buy Mase from Bad Boy in order to sign him to G-Unit. However, those talks fell through, prompting 50 to make a diss record towards Diddy titled "The Bomb" (which accuses him of stalling said negotiations). In addition, 50 also mentions no longer wanting to make a deal. (Inproper wording of proper names, weasel words, and not neutral in explaining feud with rappers)!

Mase's desire to leave Bad Boy is primarily due to his third album not selling so well. (This is an example of weasel words)!

This has been discredited however, by the wider hip-hop community. Mase has also been called a hypocrite by former G-Unit member, The Game, who called out the pastor (as well as other G-Unit members) on his anti-G-Unit DVD, Stop Snitchin', Stop Lyin'. (Another example of weasel words)!

Ok that it. Thanks. LILVOKA 15:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, pardon for typing in this editbox. Do not know how to add the comments proper way. Have a suggestion to make about the diode bridge rectifier. Having arrows on each alternation (where current leaves and enters in diagram)for students getting it first time helpful. Otherwise nice article and can be expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.91.201 (talk) 10:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ Your edit on this page was fine (tho improvable!); more about editing below.

_ _ I haven't worried abt that article that article that article for years. Let's discuss it.

_ _ You can add to this section easily by clicking , which is the same (probably until i next reorganize the page) as clicking on the "[edit]" section-editing lk to the right of "Rectifier", roughly as you did when you left your message for me.

_ _ When you reply, and in general, don't use consecutive equal signs for anything except creating headings (as i did with

== Rectifier ==

above). If you want to draw a horizontal line, position 4 (or more) hyphens at the left margin. You'll find it useful to use colons, asterisks, and pound-signs (":", "*", and "#"), in various quantities and mixtures, always starting at the left margin and without spaces or other chars interrupting them, to create, bullet, indent, and number paragraphs. (I supplement them with underline chars, since otherwise there's no first-line-of-paragraph indentation, but that makes me odd.) And (even before you register) always sign your talk-page contribs with

--~~~~

-- or with what i prefer,

<br>--~~~~<br>

_ _Thanks, & hope to hear from you.
--Jerzy•t 14:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, here's a handy tool: the before & after of the things that changed when i did that edit; you could find it by consulting the "page history", via the page's "history" tab (or other lk).
--Jerzy•t 15:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ An editor undertook what they described as an intervention, and attempted to sustain it in the face of my insistence they go away. While there is no support in the WP community for such behavior, and i chose not to permit the distraction to continue, my personal outlook and WP's outlook both support the idea that recording controversy and keeping it accessible is better than suppressing it, when information-disrupting effects like distraction and clutter are not, or are no longer, an issue.
_ _ So here's

• the original section

  (that was never removed),

followed by

• another message under a similar heading

  that was removed at least once by either me or one other registered editor, and was restored once, e.g. at 5 October 2006, with summary

  "please do not revert user comments to your discussion page; it is considered vandalism":

  (via a different AOL IP address, 205.188.117.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)).

--Jerzy•t 19:55, 3 November & 20:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without boring colleagues about the circumstances of my late realization of the fact, there were two other restorations by the original IP, and the one i mentioned above fell between them.
--Jerzy•t 20:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ Dude, I am looking over your extensive edit history, and I want to share some guidance that no one else may have the guts or, more likely, care enough to do. You are quite obviously a very, very, very sick person. I can't even begin to imagine the scene: you sitting in your closet of a house editing this site all day with intensity and your eyes glued, looking for the next battle and declaring these little wars over nothingness. What posseses you to waste your life this way? Do you get laid? Do you need further explanations as to why you are wasting oxygen and DNA with your efforts? Do you have anyone who knows you waste your life like this? Please don't be offended. But please just stop. You have a very serious illness. See a psychologist but, for God's sake, peel yourself away from this web site and do something with your life before it's over and you are forgotten for the nothing you ever did and the nothing you ever became. You need to end this now, cold turkey.
_ _ Please respond, and not defensively, here. No sane person would look at what you do, day and night, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year and not conclude that you need a massive intervention. I have to think you are a very lonely, unhappy person, so no one probably knows of the depth of your sickness. So it falls to a stranger like me, I guess. You are so engrossed that I can't envision you just admitting what has become of you, but I am willing to start to introduce you to reality. Let's start with this question: How many hours of your short life have your poured into this wasted foolishness at the expense of actually living a life?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.101.12 (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 152.163.101.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)[reply]

_ _ Thank you so much for your valuable professional advice. Further communication from you, however, would be harassment, and result in blocking of your IP and/or any account of yours that has not demonstrated a constructive role in WP. ATTENTION R.C. WATCHERS: Your assistance in the event of such harassment would be welcome. Thanks,
--Jerzy•t 15:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most "contructive" thing that can ever be contributed as it relates to you and your involvement here: Please stop and think about the depth of your sickness, sitting there, with your face glued to your computer screen, uncompensated day after day, week after week, for YEARS, tinkering with the biographies of people you don't even know, who actually are out living real lives while you are imprisoned by your addiction. You have literally wasted years of your life with this lonely, self-destructive addiction and illness, which has been at the expense of living your own life. The depth of your mental illness must make it difficult for you to see the extraordinary insanity of your actions and how your addiction has stripped you of the life that was given you.

I know a few others have evaluated what you do here and laugh at you and your sickness. It's something of an inside joke, and I guess few share it with you because they consider you hopeless. That's not right either, and I'd ask them to please stop that and try to help you. Don't laugh at this person behind their back and then just communicate with them on routine matters. That lacks all caring for a person who has an obvious and very serious illness. Something is very wrong with him/her, and while it may not be for us to diagnose the exact problem, we should pause to help with advice. Please share with him/her what we all know. It's only humane to do so.

I will do so now too:

Jerzy (or whatever your name is--consciously concealed, I'm sure, to keep your illness as private as possible), please consider some uncomfortable facts: Years of your life have now been totally consumed and absolutely wasted by your deep, deep sickness and obvious addiction. Please don't make excuses for yourself. You cannot go on like this any longer. You need to stop, and you need to stop today. Reject this advice, and I worry that your sickness will probably only deepen and your addiction will waste whatever is left of your life. Please stop. It's over. Enough. Move on. I do wish you the best and hope you will take this friendly advice seriously. It will be the first and last time I share it, and I hope you know that I share it only with your best interests in mind. It's sad what has happened to you, but I wish you good luck and hope this advice is helpful. But please take it--and do so today. You cannot go on like this.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.101.12 (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 152.163.101.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)[reply]

James Leach -- Leach -- Leach (disambiguation) --James Leach (soldier)

Thanks for your comments on the Leach dab page. I was in two minds about deleting at first, but I spent quite a lot of time looking him up, and also saw the news article you mentioned. I would point out that the subject of the project page is one James Hess Leach, still alive and well, and did not die of AIDS. As proof, he bough Malbone Castle & Estate in 1995, five years after the other James Leach died.

User:Jhleach was the originator of the article, which was very poorly written and already tidied it up considerably by yours truly. You will be aware that he attempted to hijack the 'James Leach (soldier)' article.

No doubt someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but the subject appears to be a little rich boy who was left his fortune (and a company) by daddy, and does not seem to have set foot outside of New England. He is a member of boards and associations in Providence, which may or may not underline his claim to be a philanthropist. Due to the mistaken identity, I can inform you that he certainly did not give $200k to Stanford. However, I tagged his article for lack of independently verifiable information, and even if he were notable, I still challenge someone to justify his using the label "Philanthropist". Ohconfucius 03:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ The James Hess Leach bio is a mess, and may be AfD material. However:

• The apparent entrepreneurial role with the Raybestos site may be sufficient notability.
• Being on that many boards seldom happens without philanthropy (but that is a hint of verifiability, not verification). I think it probably takes more philanthropy to be a notable philanthropist than it does to get on that many boards.

_ _ I doubt the "Family History and seat" section can be made encyclopedic, and if i were working on the article, i'd probably move that to the talk page saying "i doubt this is useful, unless it helps to identify otherwise ambiguous sources as refering to him."

_ _ I can't tell whether you refer to my two edits, or to the Dab i created, which you overwrote with a Rdr and which i have restored.

Overwriting anything with a RdR (unless it was another Rdr) is highly frowned upon. Plz tell me what you thot, at the time, would justify your doing so. Thanks.
--Jerzy•t 06:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but just didn't see the point with having successive dab pages. Unlike some other namespaces, where n individuals share the same name, say like John Edwards, there are only 4 James Leaches on the 'Leach' page, who could all have been distinguished by adding their middle names, geogaphical seats or occupations. From the angle of someone wanting to look for James Leach under 'Leach', I would be slightly perturbed by having to go hrough 2 dabs. Furthermore, James Leach as a dab page should probably have been 'James Leach (disambiguation)' per convention. This has now been moved.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohconfucius (talk • contribs) 07:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC) [I have struck thru the first three sentences of the preceding contrib, since i can find no relationship in it with what i've done and said re Leach, and cannot foresee it having any relevance to succeeding discussions here. (The author is of course welcome to say something less mysterious with the same intent.) --Jerzy•t 01:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)][reply]

_ _ Even in a running two-way discussion, you need to sign your posts.

_ _ You have made no comment that seems to be responsive to my concern about your putting a Rdr over a Dab, so i am proceeding with correcting that without your input.

_ _ I have no idea why you're talking about to me about these new things that have no obvious connection to our previous discussion, and which you've made no attempt to explicate by including lks to anything. If you haven't clarified before i finish repairing the problem you created, to which i already referred, i'll take another look in light of whatever i have to expose myself to in the course of the repair.
--Jerzy•t 20:26, 8 & 01:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A search of my Contribs since 20 September suggests that you had no reason to discuss Dabs w/ me at 07:26, 7 October other than my 06:07, 6 October reversion of your Dab-creating edit, which you effectively endorsed in your rename & edit of 07:22 & 07:39, 7 October 2006. I have struck thru that note from you, with an annotation that it seems to be meaningless -- lest it appear to others to be an unaddressed matter. If you still have whatever concern made you write it, please start over if you want my attention for it.
--Jerzy•t 01:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ You have completely misread our Dab-page naming practices. James Leach (disambiguation) is the wrong title, since James Leach is in use only to rdr to it. No bio is the predominant contender for the title James Leach, so that is the proper title for the Dab. You also don't seem to have adequately absorbed WP:MOSDAB. I have rectified the Dab page in both respects.
--Jerzy•t 01:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ The Stanford U benefactor is, if notable, a contender for James Leach (philanthropist). And JHL remains one, at least bcz his bio has had the title & copies under that title are out there on the 'Net. So that title is now a Dab.

_ _ I also agree that a less questionable means of disambiguation than "philanthropist" is worthwhile, but if he is notable enuf for an article, there should be more than 1 non-WP Google hit for his commonly used name. I.e., if he's notable, James Hess Leach is the wrong title. I've renamed again accordingly (and bypassed the double rdrs).
--Jerzy•t 01:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

José Rizal

I don't know why there should be a POV tag on this article. Which part of the article? If someone is questioning a sentence or paragraph, he/she should tag it with {{fact}}. I don't see it anywhere.KaElin 00:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Illegitmate use of tag converted to mention.Jerzy•t 03:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See talk:José Rizal#NPoV.
--Jerzy•t 03:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User talk:Lincher

Thank you for experimenting with the page List of people by name: Mo on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Jerzy•t 06:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are reverting this edit as when these pages were invented, they were used to repertoriate all of WP's biographies and in such I was adding on in order to populate that page's What links here for the guy is notable but unrelated to any other page so this is a way to help that article being read by some other users. If I don't understand something just reply on my talk page as I do this in good faith and not to disrupt/make more work for you. Lincher 13:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give you more insight on this, why didn't you revert such edit [4]? Lincher 13:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got nothing of what you said ... could you write a bit more clearly and with less abreviations in order to let me know what that jibberish (no offense ;) was?

What I think I understand is that this is a page that was split into several articles because it held too much bullet pointed items and was in itself unuseful for the user and the split gave enough material for multiple articles and that by doing that the resulting page is intended only to peruse through the system but not as a collecting information page anymore, is that right? Lincher 19:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't laughed at the way you wrote, I haven't tried in anyway to ridiculised you or anything, I just thought that the way you answered my sounded weird, I'm really sorry in having hurt you if I have in anyway for it was not my intent. I had forgotten the way gibberish was written and in order not to get a dictionary to repair my mistake I had placed it in italic with a smiley beside it. I wouldn't be trying to speak or write german for ich kann nichts auf deutsch, und du bist besser als ich. Sorry again if I have offended you in anyway. BTW, I speak French, learned English in primary school and had a class or 2 in german. Hope I can contribute to wikipedia with you more than having a rival/opponent in you. Cheers, Lincher 20:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You answered my question with your two previous posts, and I understood you first lets show that newb how it works-post which led me to tell you I wasn't doing my first edit on WP. All is well that ends well. Good luck with your work on WP, and I hope our next encounter will be as enlightening (for I have learned through your explanation of the word jibberish). I have no questions as of now but I'll come around as soon as I have some. You be sure to do the same if I can come in handy. Ciao (as they say in Italian), Lincher 21:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went through reverting your edits removing these activists and candidates and the like from this category. I've added a reason on the category talk page but I thought I'd leave a personal message here to let you know in case you don't watch these pages. Briefly, these people are politicians, whether they've achieved office or not - one of them is a sitting councillor by the way, I assume his removal was a mistake - Wikipedia's definitions must be the point of reference for this, however failing to class these people as politicians is also massively counter-intuitive. Sorry to be a stickler for this, mate. Driller thriller 22:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC) P.S. What's with the dummy edits?[reply]

Thanks for taking some time with my Seymour Knox dab page. I pretty much agree with your suggestions. I feel I might want to add something about the Warhol however. I do think that a visitor to the Albright-Knox Art Gallery might ask "Is the Seymour Knox on display" Likewise, a Knox admirer might attend a Warhol exhibit and ask the same question. I do not see anything explicit against the portrait. TonyTheTiger 18:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, placing this on the dab page with the proper wikilink disambiguates which Seymour Knox is the subject of the portrait. TonyTheTiger 19:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts. I guess you are saying that a dab page should disambiguate all likely wikipedia uses of a phrase as opposed to all likely uses by wikipedians of a phrase. Is that it in a nutshell.

Also, you imply that there are high standards for portraits. It annoys me that such common bands can get albums pages that aren't deleted and you would tell me that an Andy Warhol of a notable wikipedia article subject from a family of likenamed notable wikipedia article subjects does not in your opinion belong on a wikipedia dab unless an article is forthcoming and that such an article is likely to be unnotable. What are the standards for paintings? Would a Warhol Campbell's Soup Can or Warhol Marilyn Monroe get deleted? Do you know of this having happened? What about similarly significant work? Do you think there is enough info on the following page to generate a lasting wikipedia page Portrait of Seymour Knox TonyTheTiger 22:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great explanation of the purpose of a dab page. It will make me rethink most of my dab pages. Your inference that Portrait of Seymour Knox should get equal treatment with the "Campbell's Soup" and "Marilyn Monroe" did not mean I felt it was equally notable, just worthy of similary notability consideration. If neither of these has an article or even article section, neither should "Seymour Knox". However, if neither of these is absent because it has been unsuccessful in an AfD discussion, then I am not sure what conclusion to draw. I think that as you mentioned

In your response you mentioned G-tests on

   Warhol "Campbell's Soup"

       762 of about 85,800 (which means 85K pages, with 76% of the most significant thousand differing significantly rather than appearing to be clones of another of the first thousand)

   Warhol "Marilyn Monroe"

       803 of about 538,000

   Warhol "Seymour Knox"

       17 of about 21 (which means that there are about 21 pages, 17 of them looking unique)

I am not sure I understand precisely although I get the picture. Please elaborate.

Also, you mentioned They are also useful (without compromising that fundamental mission) where XYZ is likely to be casually used as a title for article 3, even tho there is a better title for article 3; in that case we are likely to include the title of article 3 on the Dab page, often in a "See also" section. That is the case here as I explained. The question is merely of the notability of article 3 in this case.TonyTheTiger 17:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<<But am i clear in having illustrated that some works by the same artist are much more significant than the one we are disussing. (Trivia: your guy's portrait is not the bottom end of the scale; Warhol, presumably before his breakthru, painted a signed LP-record jacket for a recording of Swan Lake; i'll bet that's not verifiable on the Web.)--Jerzy•t 19:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)>> I have always been of the opinion that "Seymour Knox" is less notable than "[[:Image:Warhol-Marilyns.jpg]" (probably because he is slightly less sexy:-) and "Image:Warhol-Campbell Soup-1-screenprint-1968.jpg". This is not a point of contention. This is no different from the fact that Seymour H. Knox I is less notable than his cousin Frank Winfield Woolworth. If you told me that people have posted articles on Woolworth that have not survived AfDs, I would not have tried to post Knox I. However, if you said no one has posted a Woolworth article and I don't think it is a topic worth posting I would contend otherwise and try to post Knox or both. I really want to understand why something that is artistically notable like "Marilyn Monroe", is not wikipedia notable in terms of being likely to survive an AfD.

The bottom line is this. I believe I could post a Marilyn Monroe that would survive an AfD. Less sure about "Seymour Knox".

<<_ _ In your response you mentioned G-tests on

   Warhol "Campbell's Soup"
       762 of about 85,800 (which means 85K pages, with 76% of the most significant thousand differing significantly rather than appearing to be clones of another of the first thousand)
   Warhol "Marilyn Monroe"
       803 of about 538,000
   Warhol "Seymour Knox"
       17 of about 21 (which means that there are about 21 pages, 17 of them looking unique)>>

I have a masters in Statistics and still do not understand what you are saying. I do understand you are teaching me something someone who has a masters in statistic should know about search engine technology today. When I put Warhol "Campbell's Soup" in Google, I get: 1 - 10 of about 86,300 for Warhol "Campbell's Soup". (0.24 seconds)

The bottom line is this: Where does the 762 and the 76% come from?— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 23:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will probably attempt a Campbell's Soup can article next week. I will let you know when I do. I will then possibly follow with Knox and possibly Monroe if it survives. TonyTheTiger 18:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided that I will likely just do Warhol Campbell's Soup and Portrait of Seymour Knox. I will not likely get to Marilyn. I have seen Campbell's Soup Cans at both the Museum of Modern Art in NYC and the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago in the last 6 months. Thus, I find them more relevant. I don't actually recall if Marilyn was at the MCA or the MOMA. You can see I have marked off my Warhol turf. I just clicked through your redlink on my discussion page to create the page. I am considering retitling it "Warhol Campbell's Soup Cans", however. I warn you. I am no art scholar. I will do what I can. I realize Marilyn could use some attention. I guess I liken it to the Coors family. I think their whole family should be cleaned up. I prefer Bud to Coors. I almost always drink Bud or Bud Light if available. Thus, I chose to do the work to clear up the Anheusers and Busches, but not the Coorses. I may get back to the Coorses if I can find the info and I might get back to Marilyn. I guess like all good wikipedians I will just have to prioritize my work. TonyTheTiger 21:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am off and running on Campbell's Soup Cans. I will let you know when I have exhausted my own limitations. TonyTheTiger 16:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say I am done, but the page is probably 80 or 90% finished. I would like to find an image from the 3rd phase of his Soup Can work to represent this series more completely. Let me know if there is anything specific you think I should address. Also, give me your assessment of its viability as a stand alone article. TonyTheTiger 21:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great response. If that is a common technique for wikipedians, googlers or internet users you should cut and paste that response into an article or at least a section of an article. You should then disambiguate it from the G test article. TonyTheTiger 18:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I recently redirected your recent creation List of people by name: name Rob to List of people by name: Rob. But looking at your contributions you seem to be very active on lists of people, so I don't quite understand what it is you're trying to do. Also I don't understand why you would delete info such as "backstroke swimmer" to have only "swimmer" or why you would have Roseanne Barr as an actor rather than an actress. Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 05:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerzy, please read my reply: talk:Jose Rizal#NPoV.
KaElin 15:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

talk:José Rizal#NPoV

Sorry for the download link, copy of my post to Talk:G Linnaeus Banks re: download of The Manchester Man

_{:sorry the link is from a japanese college who use it in the english course. i presumed that the pdf was the full book. if it is of interest i can scan a copy of the book and send it in DOC format (its no longer in copyright).} Mike33 03:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coppied from here everything is derived from that and thus falls ander the derivativew works section of copyright law. You may want to review this WP:AN#Plagiarism_Detector_Bot.
Geni 17:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No you undeleted it. Article is now your responsibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vilhelm_Hammersh%C3%B8i&diff=78166832&oldid=14426799

Does not show substantial changes And I can't go to your stub versions without violating the GFDL
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geni (talk • contribs) 17:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at yr recent List of people by name: Hen work, i continue to like what you've been doing with {{LoPbN Entry}}; not sure if the optional piping is new or if i just was too cursory in looking before. You might like to look at {{List of people sequence Oh}} (What lks there); i can imagine integrating the {{Inv-prfx}} functionality into {{LoPbN Entry}}, tho it's low-priority for me compared to LoPbN tasks like getting rid of the few remaining non-bio lks, completing the addition of the "Access to rest of list" sections, maintaining stylistic consistency, and perhaps aggressively participating in adding entries from Category:Living people (and probably fixing unpiped names first). Hope you'll not be too discouraged by my distraction from your good work/ideas.
--Jerzy•t 04:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My first reaction is that it would probably be overkill to integrate yet another parser function (#if) that will only rarely be utilized into {{LoPbN Entry}}. Another possibility would be to create another branch of LoPbN Entry (e.g. {{LoPbN Entry p}}) which does have the functionality. Is this something that you see a lot of use for?

By the way, you may be interested in an effort to get "Labeled section transclusion" as a feature in future versions of Mediawiki:

• wikisource:Wikisource:Labeled section transclusion
• http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5881

--Eliyak T·C 01:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your advice. I will try to fix the article cats piping. Regards, --Carioca 22:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you want to learn how to correctly pipe Brazilian bio articles, check the Alphabetising section of the Portuguese surnames article. Regards, --Carioca 22:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You changed "actress" to "actor" (in the case of an actress).

1. Why?
2. What does lo-res terminology mean?

Thanks.
Orbicle 08:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. Explain your reasoning on why you relinked Dave Schawrtz and Warren Madden? The reason why most OCM articles were redirected to The Weather Channel was to prevent these articles from being recreated. This was partially discussed on TWC's article page. The reason for the delinked was to avoid redirects, although I see that you added the prod. templates on the articles (which I totally agree with). see: Talk:The Weather Channel/Archive 1.
--Moreau36 08:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, first of all, thanks for responding back! :) I know we'll make mistakes and it's totally understandable. I replaced the (prod) with (db).

There's another article (Kristina Abernathy) in which I intinally slapped a (db) tag, due to the same reasons as Dave Schwartz and Warren Madden, but it was challenged, so, I replaced it with a (afd). If you don't mind, at your conveinece, take a closer look at the article and vote on the linked section I just posted above. In my opinion, non-notable people doesn't warrant a standalone article. I doubt it that she is known ouside the circles of TWC.

Much Thanks Again! :)

--Moreau36 23:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't know, the Kristina Abernathy article is now redirected to The Weather Channel. So was Heather Tesch, which I did earlier this morning. Feel free to post a similiar comments in their talk pages as you did with Dave Schwartz and Warren Madden? Good move on your part! Thanks and cheers! --Moreau36 13:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the category suggestion (Modern Paintings). I found similar categories to what I believe you intended: Paintings Category:20th century paintings TonyTheTiger 18:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was a little unsure on the categorization. Although the original 32 canvases are 1962 paintings some of the other Campbell's Soup Can paintings are from the 1960s. I guess you suggest to categorize based on only the original 32 and then only at the most detailed subcategory. Is this correct? TonyTheTiger 19:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my mindless overlooking of name piping in the cats for Col Joye. Tvoz 18:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Whoa, first comment on your user page, I better get that heading capitalization right.....Tvoz 18:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may faint- have I actually encountered someone on Wikipedia with a sense of humor?? What a relief! So many are either overly earnest, too in love with their own (mediocre) words, or about as mature as a two year old, no offense intended to little children. Tvoz 03:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(By the way, that last was my way of saying 'thanks for your note'...) About trolling for piping errors and the like, I actually don't mind doing that kind of work either, for similar reasons to what you mentioned on your user page about wandering into biogs - do you have any tips on how to spot problems or is it just a matter of opening the edit page article by article and looking ofr missing ones? Tvoz 16:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! OK, deep breaths, I will go back a little later and read that again. If you happen to have the shortcut handy, yeah, that might help!Tvoz 17:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Actually, I wasn't doing too badly following your instructions, but I ended up reading some interesting stuff about how to alphabetize Dave Brubeck in a record store - anyway, I'll read the link you just sent me. (Btw, pop-up tools sounds neat - I haven't come across that one yet. Will look - anything to make it faster.) Tvoz 18:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh God, I think I understood that. Now I'm getting worried.....Tvoz 18:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia. Allow me to summarize your comments to make sure that I have it all clear, and then I will get on to my response.

Eritrean people articles should be alphabetized according to last name, first name convetion.

This is a very interesting point. To be honest I did not even look up other cutlures when I went about fixing the Eritrean names throughout all the pages. I find that the Eritrean naming convention is in fact quite similar also to the Arabic name convention and so I looked up famous people whose name would qualify under that. They are all categorized in a manner you are suggesting.

However, as another user once told me, Wikipedia should be "descriptive" not "prescriptive". This brings a sort of challenge to mind though because amongst Eritreans who speak English and are educated abroad, when it comes to our names we still file and organize by our first name and progress through the system. For instance, when I go to the Eritrean Consulate in California and they are to look up my file they ask for my name (Merhawie). When they find that under the M's the move on to my father's name if there would be more than one file. The naming convention is very similar to the Pakistani naming convention, except in marriage the woman does not change her name.

However, I imagine the people in the American Embassy would not. So then we have to ask whose fashion of organization should take precedent. I cannot answer this question although I am sure it has certainly been discussed before. If you could let pass on such a discussion to me I would appreciate it. Otherwise I think we should consider starting a discussion at the Village Pump, because this issue really goes to the international core of wikipedia.

Thank you for reminding me and bringing my attention to this important subject. -- Merhawie 23:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Am very sorry for the apparently excessive speedy tagging, and will cease immediately. I feel it is probably the result of my current emotional problems. Once again, I am very sorry, and thank you for alerting me. Until now I would consider myself a positive contributor, and wish to remain so.

Thank you for your much-needed advice. Makron1n 04:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, there was that, and there was the alcohol, I must admit in retrospect. Anyway, thanks for putting a stop to it, as I said. Makron1n 04:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like all these pages are now unused, replaced by categories. Can these be deleted? —Centrx→talk • 03:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your attention to the Petchara Chaowarat categories. I would like to be able to point you towards a better explanation as to why Thai names need no sorting tweak, but I can't. It's just the way it is, I've been told by other editors of Thai articles. And, living in the country, I've come to accept that that's the way it is. Even in record stores, albums by all artists are grouped according to the artist's first names. I leave this note here, just to say I'm willing to try and help answer any questions. -Wisekwai 11:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed reply. No offense was taken by our initial meeting in the edit summaries. I appreciate the time you've put in this. I'm going to repost it at Wikipedia:Thailand-related topics notice board so that others who are dealing with Thailand-related articles can have a look at it. -Wisekwai 05:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You people really get mad when others mess around with Wiki?

Seriously, how often does somebody make a vanity page? Or adds a little BS here and there for fun? Probably every Friggin' minute of every day! Doesn't it ever just drive you crazy! So then why worry? Why threaten? Don't you ever just ignore it?

I mean seriously! You people are on the ball, EVERYTIME! I can't have something up for more than ten minutes.

Just let it slide. We will all be happier! Geesh!

Hello Jerzy Thanks for cleaning up the Turner section of the List of People by Name. I took a stab at it earlier when I updated the disambiguation page for Jack Turner. It's so nice to see people like you who help to standardize things and make them even more like an encyclopedia. :-) I did have a few questions as to why you made certain changes. I'm not arguing, but attempting to understand for future edits.

1. For Jack Turner (writer), which is the main entry that I created, you changed the description from "non-fiction writer and television documentary host" (which I had supplied) to "Australian writer". Turner became notable only after his several years studying at Oxford. He is probably better known for his Science Channel documentary series (of which he is the host and a co-writer) than he is for his one book (so far). He self identifies as a "writer", which is why I set that as his article heading, but I think that leaving out the TV documentary host from his description is not technically inaccurate, but somewhat misleading to people trying to disambiguate all the Jack Turners out there. I have no problem with adding Australia to the description (I left it out because I wasn't sure how best to phrase it), but I do think the TV documentary host (or some rephrasing of that clunky term) is important to add back in.
2. Why did you break the section into a smaller subsection? By your own earlier archived discussions, 25 people seem to be your cutoff for splitting a section. There are only 13 in the new Turner, Ja-Je section, and the preceding Turner, J section only has one person. I like being able to jump quickly from the TOC to the closest name, so I am guessing that's why you did it. On the other hand, I just noticed that you also created a Turner, Ji-Jo, which would have been J-Jo before the split, and that would have been over 25. I guess that answers my own question, doesn't it?
3. Why did you change Welsh to British for [[[Jack Turner (engineer)]]? I realize that Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and England are all a part of the United Kingdom, but I thought that British was more to do with Britain being a geographical area, and Welsh would seem to be more specific, and more specicifity would be preferable here. Then again, that could just be my limited United States understanding of all things British. I know from reading other talk pages and movies (and we know how authoritative movies aren't), that the specific part of the U.K. people are from is very important to them.

Again. I'm not arguing, and with the exception of adding back Jack Turner (writer)'s hosting work, I totally agree with your edits. I'm just trying to learn and become a better Wikipedian. Have a great day! --Willscrlt 00:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were only 2 edits: the first was a complete copyvio, the second was tagging the copyvio. So I don't think there's much point in undeleting that. The text was taken from www.wearesmarter.com. Good job creating a new article! --Fang Aili ^talk 14:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seemed like a pretty obvious g7 in that the article was created, and all revisions had been made, by the same editor, whose last edit was to put a prod tag on the article. Are you saying that in all g7 situations (99% of which are like the above, where the author is the only editor), I need to type out why the deletion is a g7? That seems like fairly pointless formality. NawlinWiki 13:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop harrasing people who make valuable additions to Wikipedia. Without the freedoms of a user-friendly site, Wikipedia will lose the grip it has on the internet at this time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.171.233.27 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 2 December 2006.

Hi. I have commented on your recent editing on the talk page of Don Carlos. Perhaps you would like to have a look? The original introduction was not ideal, as you know, but I don't think your solution is going to work, especially as it would create an awkward precedent. Many operas exist (and are performed) in multiple versions, treating them all as separate works would not be helpful. - Kleinzach 18:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I have no experience with that particular set of articles. I was just confused as to why a relatively obscure musician and a bunch of fictional people were singled out for inclusion on the main Hamilton page when there are plenty of more notable people. Your reasons for not including fictional people are fine but I would contend that the musician is not notable enough to display on the main page. And perhaps change the wording of the link to reflect that the article doesn't only include people with Hamilton as a surname? Axem Titanium 20:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Philanthropist, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Philanthropist. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. — Sebastian (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jerzy! I just read your contribution on Talk:Philanthropist. I was at first a bit confused by your link behind "proceeded to a ProD", because it looked like you referred to the fact that you had to restore something. Would you mind replacing that with http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philanthropist&dir=prev&offset=20061208022000&limit=4&action=history? That would avoid any wrong impressions. Thanks, — Sebastian (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that mess. I realised my mistake and reverted it, but from the look of Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves, that may have made things worse. Thanks for fixing it, I'll be more careful in future. Thanks, — User:JohnAldis 17:44, 10 December 2006 (GMT)

I wasn't trying to add any extra information to the article, in fact, just add a disambiguation page. Thanks for the welcome back. User:JohnAldis 22:35, 11 December 2006.

Tomorrow, I will be self nominating for admin. I am notifying you that our lengthy debates about artwork are a major part of my controversies essay. You may recall that these inspired me to produce Campbell's Soup Cans and Haystacks (Monet). If you look at me at [5] you can see these are two of the most important articles during my editorship. Don't be alarmed that you are named specifically.
--TonyTheTiger 16:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking you up here. I see you are quite active on the list of people by name work. Do you work with the dab people? I like to do hndis work. I see List_of_people_by_name:_John high on your list of pages by edit count. Some of my best work has been Robert Johnson, William Johnson, and Samuel Johnson (disambiguation) followed closely by E. Normus Johnson. I have to get more diligent about taking hndis work to Surname and people by name pages. Is there any project or army of people doing such work. Do you work with WikiProject Disambiguation?
--TonyTheTiger 17:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<<On the topic of {{hndis}} you said: For a while, i diligently replaced the tag by {{Disambig}} when i encountered it, and i continue to question the idea of treating human-name and ship Dabs as special cases. >>

Personally, I thought the purpose of having hndis was to make it easier for surname dab page and LoPbN researchers if people use the {{hndis|name=Surname, Given name}} format. I have been trying to switch tags the other way when I see them paying attention to add the name= part. Obviously, not all entries on hndis pages are human names. This week I plan to work on Ed, Eddie, Edward, & Edgar Jones. I know Edward Jones Investments exists and should be included on the page. However, I like the fact that I can go to and look up E Joneses. Why should I be against hndis? P.S. I have current queries to WP_Disambiguation and MOSDAB. Your comments would be appreciated.

--TonyTheTiger 19:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ I may be mistaken, but i was trying to follow the discussion at least in the period when allowing use of the tag was being debated. Altho i may have missed crucial parts of the discussion, or there may have been explicit changes since, i got the impression at some point that a (the?) principal purpose of the concept was to separate the disambiguation among those sharing a surname from disambiguation of the corresponding common noun, especially on the argument that Dabs are for articles that are each a reasonable contender for having the name as its title, which is almost never the case with a surname: John Smith is such a case and Smith is not, since there's no inclination to regard Hegel or Hitler (let alone Smith) as a reasonable title (in place of one that includes a given name as well) for any of the corresponding people. By this argument, a list of people with the same surname is a list page (a legitimate navigational tool, tho neither a true article nor a true Dab), and it's reasonable to argue from that alone that clarity of purpose justifies keeping the Dab and the surname list separate. I thot, more specifically, that it was argued that long lists of people with the surname cluttered Dabs to the detriment of the Dabs' core purpose. (BTW, my inclination is to say instead that, e.g., "Stein" is more likely to be typed as a quick means of either avoiding typing or compensating for uncertainty re the accepted given name (Ted, Teddy, Teddie, Edward, or Theodore Kennedy?) or its spelling (including, e.g., Johnathan, Jonathon, and the other two combinations that they suggest), but i'm not inclined to press the issue.)

_ _ Anyway, i was talking about removing them when their use was contrary to WP:MOSDAB, and that page has since been changed to make them an accepted variant. My most recent glance there suggested that ships and people are not being treated as parallel cases as i had assumed there were being.
--Jerzy•t 23:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Robert Larson, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Robert Larson. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. TheRingess 07:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I generally don't have great consideration for the edit summaries I write upon deleting references/links to articles that have been deleted, mostly because I do it too often and I'm lazy to add a fully explanatory justification for my removal. :-/ Usually it's just WP:COI that was spread along with the (deleted) article, so I don't think many would really bother if those non-notable mentions were simply removed. Regards,--Húsönd 03:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I've just speedily deleted Template:Stub-group - it was identical to a previous template which was deleted after it proved to be an absolute nightmare for stub sorting about a year and a half ago. Please use the standard stub templates rather than creating one of these things again! Also, in future, if you wish to create any stub templates of any kind, it'd be good if you proposed them in the standard way at WP:WSS/P. Grutness...wha? 09:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S'alright. Sorry if I seemed a bit heavy-handed with the speedying. Stub-sorting is one area of WP that is pretty organised (though that isn't often met with approval by people outside the project!). It's very much a case of herding cats, though. Grutness...wha? 22:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea, but I don't really think it would solve some of the problems. One of the bigger headaches in might cause is with substing - WP:WSS relies quite heavily on "What links here" when calculating the potential size of categories for currently upmerged template types. Thanks for the kind words about the stub sorting project, BTW! Grutness...wha? 23:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - I think i've got you now. Hm... not sure. I must admit to being pretty naive of the workings of the markup language and the like used by WP - I'm very much an "end user" - so I'm only reporting what I think was the reason for the problems. One thing that probably would be a concern though is that it would basically become a very very heavily used template - if you consider that probably about 1/3 of stub articles are doublestubbed, that would be about 125000 articles. If some form of multistubbing template like stub group was being used it would probably rapidly become the single most used template on WP, and that could conceivably cause hardship on WP's servers (this page talks about some of the issues faced with metatemplates in the past, and I think similar problems might occur here). One of the advantages of stub sorting using loads of different templates is that there aren't one or two really heavy-drain templates in use. I'm not 100% sure this would also be a problem with {{stub group}}, but I suspect it might be. In any case, you're now at the stage where you're getting a bit too technical for me to be able to comment too much :). Grutness...wha? 07:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you removed my move of Gary Roberts from Gary Roberts (ice hockey player) to Gary Roberts (hockey). Having looked at the article again, he definitely plays ice hockey, not hockey, so surely my move was correct...? robwingfield ^«T•C» 11:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for discussing, but no. To paraphrase Lenin, the purpose of dab'n is to dab'ate. And it should do that as tersely as possible. If "hockey" is sufficient to distinguish a contender for the title "Gary Roberts" from all the others, it is a successful dab'g sufx, and any elaboration on it would pervert the Dab'n mechanism, from its purpose as a navigational device, into some kind of substitute for the text of the article. The titles of books are primarily for marketing (George Washington: Hero of Independence) which can justify including some storytelling in them, but those of 'pedia articles are solely for identification. I'm not even looking at ice hockey and hockey, bcz i'm a native speaker of modern English, and i don't need a dictionary (let alone an encyclopedia, which is a poor substitute as a source of information on the usage of words) to tell me what matters here: saying "ice hockey" (since there are no air-, field-, or knock-hockey equipment, games, players, or teams around to be confused with the matter at hand) would provide no benefit, and would have a (small) direct cost and a large indirect one (contributing to the impression that terseness in dab sfxes is unnecessary or even undesirable).

(BTW, the dates in the other Gary Roberts titles are even worse, and having invested this much (away from my normal LoPbN-tree concerns) will probably get me to fix them as well, tho the correct approach is not in that case so immediately apparent: it will require reading the bios involved.)

Disambiguation work is necessary, and not a lot of fun. I appreciate your taking part in it!
--Jerzy•t 18:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good points well made...! As far as the footballer articles are concerned, I used the year of birth as that seems to be an approach that's used in the same scenario for other footballers with the same name. Both players are English, so nationality can't be used, which is the other common attribute used to disambiguate players of the same sport of the same name... happy to hear any alternative suggestions you have, though! robwingfield ^«T•C» 19:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that! It was a good faith mistake. Thank you for catching my mistake. I de-orphan article and i usually hone in on key words (mostly words that are the names of other articles) In this case, i just misintepreted the relation between the two. The word was in the article, and i understand it was used in a dergotaory sense but I had not seen it used before in that context. Hence, why I linked it. Again, I appreciate you catching that! Thanks. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind response to my stupid mistake! I will take more care in the future. You are a wikipedian that others should look up to! Keep up the good work. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I usually like to put awards on the main page but you did not have an award section so i put it here. Pelase feel free to move it wherever you desire or even delete it if you feel so inclined. Thanks again! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks to you in return, Chris, for your kind compliments to this curmudgeon, and your concern for the crucial matter of civility on WP. I'm not much for x-large and graphics, but the sentiment is heartily appreciated.
--Jerzy•t 20:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with you handling all of the process. I am not an admin. I think that you will be fair in how ever you handle it.

--Kevin Murray 01:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to alert you to this. Happy new year! <KF> 00:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerzy, just wanted to wish you and your loved ones a Happy New Year. Tony Jr. hasn't been doing much lately in Wiki because he's colaborating with articles in "Ringside" magazine, which at times are featured in HBO Boxing. It takes a lot of his time. As for myself, I write for various cultural magazines, but I always keep an eye on my stuff in Wiki. I took a look at the issue and expressed my opinion. It was nice hearing from you. Take care. Tony the Marine 06:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that it can be considered disruptive to consensus to "lobby" for keep in an AFD, as you did recently for the second nomination here? You may have made your task harder going forward, if it looks like this has tainted the natural balance of the discussion. -- nae'blis 20:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of my stated concerns above I wanted to go ahead and make the decision myself on the AFD, which was to keep. I have left a note on the list's talk page about how to go forward and make this more usable/manageable. While I understand your concern about people not knowing about "yet another nomination", and it didn't seem to present a problem in this case, please understand that I only wished to see consensus upheld and not subverted by either side. Good luck in the future. -- nae'blis 22:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'll bite, having had my first/only wikipedia edit remodified by you on the LoPbN Hamilton page.

It is arguable that William Rowan Hamilton be called British since, during his lifetime, Ireland was part of the British empire. However what is to be gained by saying that? Britain at one time held dominion over 2/3 of the globe. If we say that all those people were 'British' we arrive at some stunning incongruities: Ghandi as British; Ben Franklin as British. Just because no Irish passports were issued doesn't mean that Ireland didn't have a national identity. Italy didn't exist until the 19th century, but Leonardo Da Vinci is listed as Italian.

What is to be lost, however, is precision, which I would think would be one of the primary goals of a wikipedia article. I'm not going to remodify the page since you clearly are quite an active member of the community however I do invite you to actually click on the links of the people named on the page. Click on the main William Rowan Hamilton page and you'll see him identified properly as Irish.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.23.27.114 (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ I really appreciate that question, bcz i thot i had it thought thru as far as possible, and now find otherwise. You catch me at a busy (week-long) moment, when i'm unwilling to undertake research, but i think i got my notions on this subject somewhere in WP:MOSBIO (or a lk from it), specifically where style for the lead sentence, (para-) 'graph, and section of a bio is specified. Hopefully the unstated subconscious distinction i have been making between (i'm largely joking here in naming them!) manifest-destiny expansionism and frank overseas colonialism, is either recognized or deprecated there. I feel sure that LoPbN is roughly analogous to the lead, in that we can't make all those nuanced distinctions in what are supposed to be brief entry points into the relatively exhaustive bio articles.

_ _ Part of my concern is a slippery slope one, that there are so many nationalities that fall short of passport status, and that are likely to be impediments rather than aids to navigation. E.g., there are bios about some Indian people that mention the ethnicity ("Gujarti" sticks in my mind) corresponding to one of the Indian states but never mention "India" or "Indian", despite the growing number of states, which even some Indians refuse to keep track of; i think few Americans understand what "Catalan" means (or have ever heard of "Homage to Catalonia"), or (on the other side of the coin!) know where Eritrea is or the history of its national status.

_ _ User:Dale Arnett has been exhibiting a similar interest in LoPbN-entry descriptions, which i've promised to respond to, and i hope that will turn into a discussion on Talk:LoPbN or one of its sub-pages, and thence into style guidelines as definitive as i usually try to make my opinions on the subject sound. If you're interested enuf to register a username & start participating regularly in editing, i'd expect you to become a valuable voice in that effort.

_ _ Thanks for a good question!
--Jerzy•t 17:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I've added a little more to Talk:List of people by name: Sti and I would be grateful for your thoughts. Thanks. Greenshed 01:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, what was that? - I have no idea like this took place, whether it was a fault of me or a bug by the AWB, but since it seems to have happened only one times, I suspect the first case. However I will watch the AWB in any case if I use it again. Thanks for the correction and the notice. By the way I was very surprised as I read the German word 'schmutz'. I did not know that it has found its way into the English language. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 11:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

Hi, no need for an apologise, it could absolutely have been that way.

• In Germany we divide between "Comedians" (similar to your stand-ups Kevin James, Ray Romano or Jerry Seinfeld) and "Kabarettisten" (what would be translated as revue performer best). While the first ones are rather using the simple humour which everybody understands, the second ones represent the profound humour about which one must always think. As a rule, Comedians make fun of everyday situations, and Kabarettisten about the politics. The former would like to maintain, second provoke.
• I don't know many Americans so I can't decide whether your German is good for them. My hometown has housed about 10000 Canadians more than 20 years and I must then, if I compare your German with their, say that you come off very well. You make very few mistakes (sometimes at the word endings). Best wishes ~~ Phoe _talk 16:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

I have a conference in town this week and have to reformat my HD next week. I have been quite limited on WP time of late with the holidays and all and will be so for the next week. If it O.K. if I don't get to the merger for a week or so I will do it. It is only tangentially of interest to me, but I would undertake the task as a learning experience in much the same way I produced the 3 art articles. BTW, I just put Campbell's Soup Cans up for FA after going through PR and GA review. TonyTheTiger 14:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerzy- While you clearly have more experience as a wikipedia user than I, I feel it is unfair of you to propose to delete my work based on an assumption on your part that happens to be incorrect. Steven Leyba is a legitimate painter, performance artist, published author, and musician. He is well known in many circles, and for you to say that creating an article about him and his work is akin to "self promotion" is completely unfair and also completely untrue, as I am not him. Perhaps Leyba doesn't interest you on a personal level, but surely you must know that others have differing opinions and tastes than you. Now, on the other hand, if my formatting is incorrect (i.e. not citing sources accurately, etc) then that is another matter. I admit that I am still learning and fine tuning my wikipedia skills, and I am more than willing to rectify any technical mistakes. But to write him off entirely as unworthy of an article, etc, seems unjustified. Furthermore, your harsh manner is confusing and seems wholly unnecessary, in my opinion. rebecca 07:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have voted to keep unmerged in the John Frederick Brill debate. I think the artist is fairly interesting and mildly notable for his combined military service and artwork. TonyTheTiger 21:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the merger remains unresolved. Why don't you try a {{expert-subject|Visual arts}} tag or some other notification of the WP Visual arts people. TonyTheTiger 19:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I spent some time at the Main Downtown branch of the Chicago Public Library today. I spoke with the art reference librarian about the Bardia Mural and John Frederick Brill. Neither is notable enough for inclusion in any print materials she could find. There does exist a Frederick Brill, who is in different Dictionaries of British Art who lived from 1920-1984. There are numerous internet citations. I may attempt to expand the article a bit from these, but many seem to be referenced in the article. I have not heard from you and hope you are not disappointed in me that no progress has been made. TonyTheTiger 18:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Campbell's Soup Cans is really just awaiting some image consents before going up for FAC2. It has come a long way. TonyTheTiger 18:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jerzy - I've been working on the various Awards categories for a while now, and have proposed to merge Category:Recipients of formal honors, Category:Prize winners, and Category:Award winners together. It looks like you're one of the very early editors of the Category:Recipients of formal honors, so if you have some thoughts about the proposal please join in. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 9#Category:Prize winners and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 9#Category:Prizes . Best, lquilter 04:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information you provided on El Malcriado. You are correct, it was the newspaper of the United Farm Workers. Would you please tell me where you came across the info? It will be helpful in writing the article. Thanks, --Rockero 05:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way you've laid out your argument makes it very hard to follow. It would be a lot easier if it was just in plain prose. Tyrenius 18:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I will leave you to clarify... I was going to post a comment on the AfD and ended up talking myself into a keep... Tyrenius 22:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The books that I employ contain only one Wilhelm Schmid who was born in 1859. As I wrote his bio, I may have hastily placed a link to an improper page. I tried to straighten out the links by erasing them. Currently, there is a very popular philosopher with many connections to Internet URLs. His name is Wilhelm Schmid, too; he was born in 1953. He has no bio in Wikipedia. There is also a Wilhelm Schmid, born in 1892, who was an artist. He has no bio in Wikipedia. SA Men lists a Wilhelm Schmid (a soldier in WWI), but information on him is unavailable. One or two others may have existed in the 17th and 18th centuries. I was surprised to find so many of them. GhostofSuperslum 21:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. I won't add any extra and unnecessary details to the descriptives from now on. Basically, I knew that I was taking a risk by adding in those unnecessary enhancements. I shall stop as of now. GhostofSuperslum 23:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well at last, I get a message from the one and only Jerzy, the chief custodian of the LoPbN, a lonely and honorable profession! Thanks for the helpful comments regarding months and making distinctions between similar list entries. Yes, you get the gist of my "project", just skimming down the list of all articles and adding all entries that look like people. For a reason, I have a lot of free time on my hands now, and figured this is a good way to spend (a portion of) it, as it needs doing. I sure don't expect to get most of it completed any time soon, but as this seems to be a task that does not extend itself well to automation, it falls to someone with the will and general lack-of-life (humble moi) to take charge and populate the list. Thanks again for the help, and for your hard work! --Slyguy 01:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your extensive comments and suggestions. About nationality, in the last week I've learned that saying "(country 1)-born (country 2) etc." easily resolves the multiple nationality issue. Also, I've never thought about editing sections before, but now it seems like a good idea and I will incorporate it in my process. (Click on "edit" on the right-hand side, correct?)

Currently, I would estimate that the (English) LoPbN contains no more than 15 per cent of all the bios in (the English) Wikipedia, and that's a generous estimate. If the list grows to contain, say, 50 per cent, then creating sections with a higher granularity and finding faster ways to navigate may become an issue. This problem could be averted by arguing for only "notable" additions to the list, but in my case, I figure that if they are sufficiently notable to have an article at all, then they are sufficiently notable to be included in the list.

FWIW, I often check your lo-res changes to the list to get ideas about proper format.

--Slyguy 15:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 15 per cent figure (for number of bios already in the list) was just a rough estimate, as for that and the other estimates you were curious about, I could take a chunk of time and do a sort of informal "survey" of how many bios are stubs, etc. I'll do some thinking on this. (The bios should probably be picked at random from all of WP instead of using a "clump" of them, since the nature of that clump might influence the results. E.g., if I surveyed from all people with given name "Nigel" then that would probably return mostly British bios.)

Do you agree with my labeling edits as minor? In each case, it's usually just one bio added to the list.

--Slyguy 17:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One method of random sampling might be:

1. Clicking on "Random article"

2. Seeing if the article that comes up is a bio

3. If it is, use it as a data point

4. Do this until 1000 (or however many) bios are sampled.

Obviously, this is not efficient and labor-intensive.

I think that, after reading your thoughts, and seeing others add entries without tagging them as minor, that I will drop marking my adds as minor. After all, as you wrote, every entry adds substance. I doubt anyone will complain.

--Slyguy 14:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the many, many names I have been adding to the List of people by name: Morr, are we only supposed to add names if they have a bio article? In the case of those three you removed, I only added them in the first place because the names exist as redirects to those articles. It doesn't really bother me one way or the other, but it would be useful to know. Incidently, I spotted a couple of red links on that very page - I take it they're a definite no no? PC78 16:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I don't really mind. For the sake of a couple of links my own preference is to be inclusive - obviously someone felt it necessary to create those names as redirects - but I'm happy to follow your lead. PC78 17:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If got no idea what you're talking about, but "Wikify" refers to changing the appearance of an article to reflect Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It's uncommon to see it in edit summaries, but seeing as how edit summaries aren't requires in the first place, I highly doubt that anyone cares. --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 21:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The prime reason I followed through with the Speedy request is that - on top of the speedy deletion tagging it received - it looked like an autobiography, and it's very difficult to keep the Speedy deletion patrollers away from something like that.

If you want to restore the article to its previous state, you have my okay to do so, and if you feel it necessary to take it to AfD following this restoration, I'll leave that up to you. Bobo. 06:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it sounds really corny to say this, but it's awesome to finally get in touch with the first person whose userpage I ever visited on Wikipedia, all that time ago in 2004 when I was so scared of taking the plunge and joining. Your essay about non-native speakers, despite being one myself, got me interested in the real open-ness, visibility, and collaborative nature of this project. Thank you. Bobo. 06:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed analysis of the progress I've been making on the LoPbN. To be honest, though, (as you know) I am (for now) skipping over some tracts of names that are non-Western and difficult to alphabetize. To give a ballpark figure, I've probably included 75 per cent of names that I've come across so far, so you can factor that into your figures. Eventually, I may go back over the ones I've skipped, figure them out (for example, by seeing how they are alphabetized in categories they are in), and then include them. (I am keeping track of names I've skipped -- e.g. "Abu"s, "Aga"s.) I believe it makes little difference at this point, since with the sheer volume of people to add, 75 per cent of a zillion is still a zillion.  :-)

Thanks for the info on the transclusion reduction. I'll tell you if I notice any difference in response time. --Slyguy 15:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding, how would I remember that? To be more serious, no, I'm not sure. I would assume very strongly that the two George Peels are one and the same. As far as I know, the names and dates given by me are from the Norton Anthology of English Literature. Sadly, my copy of the Norton is 100 miles away at the moment, so I can't look it up. john k 05:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, that's very odd. The 'bot should have skipped that, since it's now checking for "live" category membership, as well as "category:" in the wikitext; and it shouldn't even have been looking at it in the first place, since the list it was working from was all (supposedly) uncategorised in the last db dump. Mystery upon mystery. I'll certainly see what I can do to prevent this, but currently I'm baffled as to why it'd do it in the first place. What was the other such article you noticed? Alai 10:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem, I think I've (partly) worked out what was going on on the more recent page. There was indeed a bug, and a pretty blatant one at that: it was pattern-patching against "Categories" in the live page, whereas if there's just one, it's "Category". D'oh. I hadn't noticed that until now as it only happens when the article is on a list of candidates (meaning, supposedly, that until recently it was indeed uncategorised), and it's now in exactly one category transcluded via a template. However, the part that confuses me is why this was on the list, as it seems that it was categorised at the time of the db dump, but said categorisations doesn't appear therein. Odd. Hopefully won't happen again now that I've modified the 'bot code: please let me know if you see anything similar again. Alai 21:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about this edit you made, with the edit summary "fix broken link." I tested the link before I saved and it worked, and I tested it again via the diff page after you made your change. Why do you say it's broken? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matchups (talk • contribs) 02:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

How bad an idea would it be to run PockBot against Category:People, in light of

1. the unknown number and size of cycles,
2. performance impact, given the 6-digit scale of real people descended from Category:People (Category:Living people alone has 152K entries), and
3. the difficulty of weeding out descendants, on that scale, that are not real people?

--Jerzy•t

Hi. It wouldn't be a bad idea so much as it wouldn't be particularly useful to you - PockBot has code built in so that it will cut out after a cycle if the article number has reached a certain threshold (i think about 2000). It would then notify you of the articles fetched thus far and that this reresented a subset of all the articles in that category. So you would see the list and status of a certain number of articles but, for a category of that size, nowhere near all of them. The bot is only really intended to be used on smaller, manageable cats, in order to give an indication of article statuses that can then be investigated or graded manually etc. - PocklingtonDan 07:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks; better to know than to continue mulling over whether you're likely to have implemented outputting the difference between two Cats' descendant sets. (I'm now lighthearted enuf abt it to think of it as Undead Mode, since it could be used to find descendants of Category:People who are descendants of neither Category:Living people nor Category:Dead people -- something more useful than it sounds like it should be.) Thanks for your attention, and keep up the good work.
--Jerzy•t 07:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several matters that may be worth covering on or lk'g to from User:PockBot:

1. I believe it is now regarded at least as inevitable that the structure of the Cat system should not be a DAG. Is it feasible to provide a brief statement on the bot's reaction to fully traversing a cycle?
2. At some point, the Cat system was enhanced to dynamically explore on a single page the descendant (quasi-)tree of a Cat. But can PockBot provide usable output reflecting the full descendant (quasi-)tree that it visits for a given request?

3. Long preface: It would AFAI can see require significant extensions of the Cat system if it were to support touring algorithms aimed at including only what i might call "common sense" descendants of a Cat. (For example, Spain is probably not be a child of Category:Countries, but is surely a descendant, and is also a common-sense descendant bcz it is a country. On the other hand Category:Spain surely has many descendant articles whose topics are not countries but rather aspects of the country of Spain: e.g., Bullfighting is presumably a descendant, but not a common-sense one, of Category:Countries.

Short question: Can/could PockBot be instructed against following Cat memberships that would include non-common-sense descendants? -- i suppose with some syntax like

Exclude/Include <Cat>/<Catlist> [Except <Cat>/<Catlist>]

and an include-the-parent-but-not-the-children option, if that's not implicit in what i said.

--Jerzy•t 23:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. PockBot's operation works as follows - it fetches a list of all subcats in a category, and then all subcats of each of those subcats, and then again and so on. Then it starts fetching articles on a hierarchical basis (ie, first from the master cat, then fromt he subcats, then the sub-sub-cats and so on).

PockBot is a bot and so is stupid. It would be hopeless to try and program it to make common-sense judgements about category descendants. I have noticed the phenomenon you describe of sub-sub-cats being related to their parent cat, but not to that parent's parent's cat. However, in most cases, I have found that this is simply a case of mis-categorisation at some level, and something I have then corrected. In a lesser number of cases I have found that it is not miscategorisation pre se, but rather different interpretations of what a category should be. For example, for the category "People", I would expect to find only real historical or contemporary human persons. However, subcats might contain cartoon, or fictional people such as "Jessica Rabbit" and "Zorro". This is really more a problem to do with category names being too vague, and one person interpreting people as "real people, alive or dead" and another as "anything that can be considered a person, fictional or real"

In the ideal world, based on my experience with PockBot, I would like earch article to be placed in one, and only one, hierarchical category, and for each category to have an auxiliary name or tag that states what elements should be in it. For example, "bullfighting", should NOT be listed under a subcat of Spain, because its parent is a country, it should clearly only be listed under "sports" or similar.

In conclusion, PockBot shows up a lot of the flaws with the current categorisation system, but sadly doesn't really have a way of working around them.

Would it be useful to have an "ignore subcats and get only articles in root cat" option or only to have a fully-specifiable tree selection option?

Thanks - PocklingtonDan 07:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey uh, just wanted to say thanks for picking up my typo and that you are, by a large margin, the best a blowing things out of proportion that I've ever seen. Thanks again Electriceel 13:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the phrase "Reckless Laziness", but unfortunately it (as much as it would appear to) doesn't apply to me. I distribute my laziness in specifically thought out portions, with great care to give as much laziness as possible to every situation (within reason). But on this occasion, it seems I overindulged in laziness. I must have had a rough day or something, and I... well, it's like a beer, or a block of chocolate - laziness as a reward. And so, the typo (which indeed it was) of Antheunis instead of Atheunis was made. Now, as you point out, it did lead to massive incorrectness (you better believe you can have degrees of incorrectness!), but it was from a typo, not on that page, but the one I copied the name from, which I'm going to fix soon... I've alotted a significant amount of laziness to it : )

As for my understanding of the English language, my written grammar, syntax and vocabulary are impeccable, but for your own safety, STAY AWAY WHEN I SPEAK OUT LOUD! If for nothing else, to save yourself from being showered in saliva. But that doesn't really apply on WP.

Uh... where was I?...

The fact was, your "over enthusiasm" did disgruntle me, but that's ok - at least you can talk about it reasonably.

So thank you Mr. Harmless Drudge (which I did get without the link actually), I only hope that one day I can return the typo correction favour : ) Electriceel 22:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Each and every time that I place a name into the lists, it means that I am looking at a biography of the person in New International Encyclopedia. I use the lists to fulfill the "What links here" part in the toolbox. I am trying to grasp how to place a name into the lists so that it fits without generating any objections. The lists of people by name is a sideline activity that I perform whenever I'm otherwise unoccupied. My main use of the lists is the creation of Red Links which will conveniently serve to satisfy the "What links here" requirement after I have started a biography of a person. I noticed that years are not written (0000-00) but are written (0000-0000) using four numbers for the YOB and four numbers for the YOD. Henceforth, I will follow that model. Also, I will keep the descriptives short. No more of the "Chancellor of the German Empire 1894-1900" types. By the way, "Politician" is a word that is commonest in the United States. Other nations may not use the word. Please leave my Red Links in place because I may (or may not) create an article that makes use of them (sooner or later). I don't know who removed my Red Links from the name Jones but I was frustrated after having typed them in only to find out that they had been obliterated. My Red Links were destroyed! GhostofSuperslum 01:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message on my talk page, which I found after I had finished my reply at Talk:Matt Beaumont. All the best, <KF> 00:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, you left a message on my user talk page saying that I made wreckless edits to wikipedia articles (List of people by name and List of people by name: Sd) however I did not make any changes to the first article mentioned above, if you do not believe me then please sheck the page history). I admit that I made some changes to the List of people by name: Sd and I admit that I made a mistake there by changing it'sd title so it sdaid disambiguation at the end and I spelt it wrong first time so I had to correct it and at the time I believed that all dismabig pages need to have disambiguation in brackets after the title so I can undersatannd your reversion of that but you also said on my talk page that this was one of my first page moves, well clearly this is not the case per the user move log under my user name This was also not my first edit, I have made of 6,000 contributions to wikipedia and have been here for six months. Aswell as this I do not edit under any other user accounts or anyonymous IP addresses as you mentioned on my user page; Tellyaddict is my only user and edting name on wikipedia. Finally you seem to be in violation of WP:AGF (to make this worse you seemed to think I was new here therefore in strong violation of this). You also warned me saying I will be blocked without further warning if I vandalise anything else which I haven't anyway you have then skipped to a Template:test4 when you are meant to start at a Template:Test1 and move up appropriately depending on the severity, even though I didn't vandalise anything and my edits were in good faith, I am quite annoyed at this matter, sorry for the long message but I needed to sort this out. If you've anyother comments please leave them on my talk page.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 12:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Sd (disambiguation), by Mschel, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Sd (disambiguation) is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Sd (disambiguation), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Sd (disambiguation) itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 00:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]