Welcome!

Hello, Erechtheus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! ForestH2 05:55, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I generally can't remember off-hand all of the warnings. I use Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace because it is very diffucult to remember every little warning! Hope that helps... Ian Manka Talk to me! 23:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) Erechtheus 23:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

) It wasn't as bad as I was expecting, actually. I'd give it a thumbs-up to anyone who likes strawberry soda. Not for me, though. Lambertman 02:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also wish unethical behavior were notable. Sadly, it is not -and attorneys are not alone in this, unfortunately. jawesq 01:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck to YOU!!! When you get your monthly state bar newsletters, you will see attorneys getting disciplined or disbarred. Ethics is all important, and we need more ethical attorneys. By the way, I also am owned by a couple cats (and a couple dogs)! jawesq 01:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is this? I see you suggested it for Jim Shapiro, which is great. Where did you find this and what is it? Thanks!jawesq 03:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at that. I think if you look at that again, A6 (attack page) is under 'non-speedy' deletion. It's a very good reason, however, in addition to non-notability.jawesq 03:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take that back. I believe you are correct. Sometimes the WIki instructions are VERY badly writtenjawesq 03:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to ask an admin about this - one who helped me earlier today. Maybe he will agree. I hope so.jawesq 03:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the quotation under 'external links'. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jim_Shapiro This links to another Wiki project, quotations, that was nominated for deletion, as well. Your input there is welcome. Thanks!jawesq 03:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Although the article survived one AfD it doesn't preclude it from being nominated again though it would have to be for a different reason or it will only be kept again. If you want to pursue deletion then have a read of Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Although no rules are hard and fast on Wikipedia if you follow them you're less likely to be contested. As you clearly understand, I removed the tag as it was not a suitable candidate for speedy deletion though if you go through the AfD process, the delete tag cannot be removed until a decision is reached by a sysop based on the arguments presented by those who respond to the AfD. Good luck! Mallanox 22:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please re-visit the AfD. I found a bunch of info that establishes notability. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 18:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Glad to have been of help to you and your Azerbijan-style article. I kind of roam around looking for articles whose stub definitions need refining, so for me it was all in a day's work. For your reference, in case you weren't aware of it, there's a good list of stub templates here which is where I usually head if I can't remember what I'm doing. All the best. Budgiekiller 18:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. For your interest, I usually head here for categories too. It starts a little on the abstract side, but it's probably better to have an abstract cat than no cat at all. Cheers. Budgiekiller 18:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that I should not write an article about me. You should note that the article was not written by me. Hence I am not able to comprehend the Vanity Issue. Can you please clarify it. My problem is not with deleting or keeping it. It is regarding to the mud sligning that has been happening in the AFD Debate of various individuals (as well as corporates / Organisations etc) after nominating the article for debate.

I was pushed into editing the article only for the past 2 days after I get comments like "non-notable" "exam-cram" "limited shelf life". How am I to oppose it. If it is an article, we can remove that citing lack of sources.

And then the important question is - How will the article come under vanity when I did not write it.Doctor Bruno 00:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you have mentioned it, I thought that I will bring the issue of User Blocked to your attention.

For the past few days, whenever I try to edit an article or talk page, I get a reply that the user has been blocked. The IP given is Google's IP. After few minutes, when I click the 'edit this page' I am able to edit

I am editing from India

Hence I feel that there is a problem some where, perhaps related to the Google ToolbarDoctor Bruno 14:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will get a snapshot next time and send that to the Admin Doctor Bruno 14:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/78/Wikiblock.jpg/800px-Wikiblock.jpg

I saw you voted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Year pronunciation. I have to say that the nominator of this page was an Afd vandal. Georgia guy 16:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated Florian Grassl for deletion partly because there was "no information [in the article] that would establish the individual's notability". I discovered much of the article was removed in a previous edit and have restored the missing information. This may not sway your nomination, but I thought it'd be nice to let you know. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 08:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. I should have checked that myself. You are right that it does not change my assessment. It does change my rationale, though. Erechtheus 18:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, Snape's Worst Memory is a story in the Harry Potter series, or some kind of substory. I'm not sure, but there are pages that link to it. You might want to check the article links and reconsider the {{db-nonsense}} tag. I think the article could use a lot more cleanup and some context to indicate just what it's about, but in the Harry Potter context, it isn't total nonsense. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 18:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I should have rechecked the article links more closely. It turns out that it was deleted (per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snape's Worst Memory), so it really should have been tagged with {{db-repost}}. I didn't even notice that. Ah, the joys of editing when half-asleep. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 21:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I barely had time to start adding the other text about St. Gummarus I was working on before this got tagged for deletion. Three whole minutes. Thanks for the WP:AGF. --evrik 18:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• ummm... next time you could wait more than three minutes. --evrik 18:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• BTW, I just got to Gummarus. --evrik 21:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice. I definitely approve of that penny's worth of electricity or whatever. He seems quite interesting. Erechtheus 03:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. =) In general, articles with only links do get deleted (CSD A3), but this specifically does not apply to disambiguation pages (and practically, not to lists that are better served as categories, but as a rule, those should be turned into categories too).

I suggest you read through the criteria, as well Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Explanations (which is incomplete). The criteria are meant to be rather clear-cut. Patent nonsense is just that: Stuff that makes absolutely no sense however you look at it, and doesn't look like it's written in any legible language Generally, stuff that looks like it may make some sense are better PRODded. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's likely to get deleted anyway, but ya never know. NawlinWiki 16:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: It's quoted on the Liverpool FC website so I will cite this as a source.

Hi, I've just spotted your banner about potentially merging this chant into the Liverpool F.C. article. The main problem with doing this is the main article is already over recommended size. Lots of far more important bits of information have already been moved into various sub-articles, so there is very little chance of people deciding to put this in. I didn't realise the chant's article existed, and now I do, I really don't see what the problem with it is. Plenty of songs have their own articles, and this song happens to be public domain, allowing us to list the entire lyrics. aLii 14:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that before you go around accusing serious editors of vandalism, you read what Wikipedia:Vandalism says about it ("While having large chunks of text you've written deleted, moved to the talk page, or substantially rewritten can sometimes feel like vandalism, it should not be confused with vandalism.") Perhaps I could also direct your attention to Wikipedia:Assume good faith? Truth is though, even with all the good faith in the world, I couldn't really take this edit seriously. The preponderance of silly and useless categories is just reaching staggering proportions. Of course, if you had been more concerned with creating better articles than with clogging them up with useless categories, one click would have taken you to the Norwegian page, where you wouldn't have to be a linguist to decipher: "fødd 25. mars 1941 i Trondheim".

But hey, I've created articles on every Norwegian government ministers since 1814 - about 4-500 of them - and hardly any of them have anything but year of birth and death. If this is what you like to do, then knock yourself out. Eixo 15:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I respect your opinion, I just don't like being called a vandal. Has the implementation of this category been discussed at all, though? There seems to be no clear policy on where to use it. In an article such as Jane Johnson (c. 1813-1872) it is meaningless; she was a slave, we're not even sure what year she was born, we'll certainly never know the date. The same is the case with most people born before the modern period, like Amr ibn Hishām. Here the category serves no purpose at all, because the information simply doesn't exsist. Including it won't prompt any useful editing, it will only stand as a reminder of the article's inadequacy for ever and ever and ever. If I've created a good biographical article, incorporating all available modern scholarship, I certainly don't want that scar on it. It is iportant to distinguish between information that is missing and that which is simply unavailable, and these issues must be adressed before any wide-scale implementation (we're talking of tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of articles here) is started.

I'll put this on the category talk page as well. Eixo 16:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Erechtheus, A7 is probably the most contentious of the speedy deletion criteria. Speedy deletion was initially created just to eliminate obvious vandalism. Some administrators will not delete any article under A7. This article probably does fail WP:NMG and likely will be deleted, but if there is anything in an article that suggests even a shred of verifiability and notability, then I prefer that it goes through a non-speedy mechanism (prod or AfD). Hope this explains things. -- Samir धर्म 02:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I used the helpme template to ask what I should do with an image in an article such as Frank Reynolds (artist). I'm not sure where that would be addressed in the FAQ. Erechtheus 02:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean 'what to do with it'. You mean orienting it on the page? Or is it a license problem? —Centrx→talk • 02:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean properly orienting it. As far as I know, there is no problem with the use of the image. Erechtheus 02:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have put it where I think it makes sense. See [1], specifically "|right". —Centrx→talk • 02:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to you. This is the first time I have dealt with anything about using an image effecitvely in an article. Seeing it done really helped me out. Erechtheus 02:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, wow, neat! I categorize articles every day but somehow never knew about the missing place/year of birth categories. Very useful.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. In fact, I may use the categories just for that purpose. I imagine a simple Google search, at least for birth dates—something like ""first name last name" "date of birth""—would quickly find the required information for many bio articles.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to drop a quick thank you for helping clean up The Carlton Hotel. It is always good to see little gnomes helping clean up after some of the more sloppy (not me of course!) user. Thanks again.--Saintlink 07:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it could be removed at my discretion as directed. They are longer than a few sentences and provide a healthy number of references. I'm alright with the stub status.

thank you, i'm trying my best. these two groups have history that is buried pretty far, so it's hard to research them. NinjaNubian 08:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. I appreciated your reading and giving attention to the article. I thought that there might have been a decade category for deaths, like deaths in the 1870s or something like that, so when I saw that there were no such categories, I changed it. It is a pleasure when Wikipedians dwell and work together in unity.--Drboisclair 19:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Erechtheus. Thank you for taking the time to reviewing this article, your detailed input will be especially help. Hopefully in the future we'll get this to GA status. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 01:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]