,

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 06:05, 15 January 2026 (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]

thanks for wikifying shankar(cartoonist)'s page. thanks for edit help Nileena joseph 10:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was a mistake on my part, I forgot to put something in the edit summery. TJ Spyke 01:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are edit summaries a requirment for adminship, or do they just help your chances?--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 01:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. (This edit summary thing is gonna take some getting used to...)--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 01:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A propos of your deletion notice on the basis that this is a non-notable church location, in fact this is part of a series on Anglican cathedrals in Canada. There is substantially more information to be added in due course, but the article does not merit deletion. Thanks. Masalai 08:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Little by little over the next few days now that the longstanding redlink has been filled in a little. It is, after all, the cathedral church of an important diocese; it may well be the oldest extant Anglican cathedral in pre-1949 (when Newfoundland entered Confederation) Canada. What, in particular, is your concern? Surely there are ample other such pages that are considerably less significant.Masalai 08:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erechtheus, it's a bit much to suggest I've fallen afoul of WP:AGF simply because I don't share your own idiosyncratic interpretation of it, especially when you are doing so as a rhetorical exercise. We both voted "Keep" (in your case, having changed from a Delete vote); why are we having this argument? Why vote one way and then leave a string of "comments" to the opposite effect? Carolynparrishfan 18:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is my fault for not reading the edit summary (or the whole article). My first reaction to the OR tag was that you thought the whole article was fictional, when this is not the case (i.e. the existence of Colfox and his position as an MP are verifiable), but your tag obviously applied to later parts in the article. Feel free to reinstate the tag. --New Progressive 20:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Virginia WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the state of Virginia.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every Virginia article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 01:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2006 issue of the Virginia WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 02:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your help-- if you're interested in the general topic, let me know, because I will be writing/editing a few more. DGG 02:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Erechtheus. I reported Zacto Systems Philippines to Wikipedia:Copyright problems rather than deleting it since it is not from a commercial content provider (CCP), which is a company that makes money directly from the content that has been copied. The company must be a CCP to qualify for speedy deletion under A8. Basically, a company has to be a newspaper/news site, magazine, encyclopedia or something similar for it to qualify as a CCP. The company must be selling add space or charging a subscription to view the content. Advertisements, promotional content and "about us"/"company history" content do not count, since paying to see them and having them be supported by ads is very unusual. If the content is used without permission, they still count as copyright violations, of course. Many admins do not know about, do not understand or just ignore the CCP provision, but I do not. However, good work on catching the copyright violation. Thanks, Kjkolb 09:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion to see if there was any changes and on the talk page to see if there was a discussion about it. I found that the CCP requirement was removed last week without my noticing (it is on my watchlist), so you are correct. I had argued for its removal several times before, but we never had a consensus. It will make things easier from now on, although I wish that all potential copyvios that clearly postdate the originals could be deleted, not just those less than 48 hours old. Also, 48 hours is extremely conservative in regards to mirrors. A week or two would be more realistic. Anyway, I deleted the article. Sorry for the mistake. Talk to you later, Kjkolb 11:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baronetcies. - Kittybrewster 11:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I must decline at present, but I wish you luck in this project. Erechtheus 18:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm after adding a link to the Lega Calcio website (Offical Italian League website) showing the fixtures for future serie a games which backs up the information on the page, therefore I removed the citation template. Just wondering what is fully required for describing what the page is about. As it stands, that page is essentially a sub page of the main 2006/2007 Serie A article and as such, doesn't really need much explanation. I've improved the explanation a bit and really there isn't much more to be said. I've left the other template on the page for removal on your discretion. Thanks. Niall123 11:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to withdraw, though I suggest that you wait until the AfD closes so that it can gather more community consensus, as it's always possible that someone can come up with a better idea.--TBCTaLk?!? 06:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just through there yesterday and noticed the signs in and out of town read "Hanover Courthouse". While most people refer to it as Hanover or write Hanover on their addresses, the community still retains its original name. The actual Hanover Courthouse is beautiful, it's definitely worth a stop everytime ;) --Caponer 15:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm new. Do you want me to put in stats? Like, I'm not sure the exact number of people killed or anything. I'm not really sure what you'd like. What would you include?Template:Unsigned:Effervescence92

Hi there, I just wanted to say that, in relation to my (admittedly out of process in that context) remarks on the deletion review regarding that Admin you had an issue with, you will have my support for any Request for Comment or other similar procedure you might consider initiating. I understand that admins, like anyone, can have bad weeks, but I do see them as having quasi-"public official/servant" status on Wikipedia, and I don't think its acceptable to brusquely ignore official processes such as afd policies and deletion review at their personal whim. Bwithh 23:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - this article has been renominated per WP:BIO. Rklawton 01:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril Lord was an entrepreneur who went spectasularly bust during the 1960s in Northern Irelnd. His career there was very similar to that of De Lorean a few years later. He came in for coverage in Private Eye in its early years. The material is there for a proper article, it is a question of assembling it within the strictures about original research, I will do this in the next couple of days. The Private Eye article needs adjustment in several areas, this is one, but it is better to do the additional articles first. Guy 06:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the category "Place of birth missing" as it is mentioned in the article "Kersbeek-Miskom" (Which is by the way a part of Kortenaken) --Donar Reiskoffer 09:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Erechtheus - No problem at all with deleting my article - it didn't meet the encyclopedia criteria! And now that I know about the criteria, I agree with it. Thanks for the note on my user page.

For me, the issues with using wikipedia are that I am so, so busy, and the few times I have time to write I don't also have time to wander through all of wikipedia's rules. For me, the time choice is one or the other - contribute, or learn the rules, which can mean hours and hours of wading through policies which may or may not be relevant. At which point I lose the train of thought about what I wanted to contribute in the first place. Sometimes it's easier to contribute and then let someone who actually knows the current policies (and where to find them) edit.

...and BTW, I have a question - all of the users I've met so far are men? Nice men, but is that just an odd coincidence or are there more men using wikipedia than women?

Pls respond on my user page, as the chance that I'll make it back here is slim.:) - Aunt Amanda

Hey, thanks. We're all here to do the same thing, right? As for beating you to the submission, that's probably just a sign that I have too much time on my hands! Dppowell 20:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you added the "unsourced" template to the stub I created for Emile Henry Lacombe. The basic data are taken from the Federal Judicial Center's biographical directory available online, which is a public domain resource. Eventually, there should be an article on every federal judge, particularly appellate judges, and this was meant as a starting point. I believe there is a template reflecting information derived from the FJC directory, but I'm not quickly finding it. Do you happen to know what it is? If not, I will poke around for it tomorrow. In the meantime, thanks for noticing the article, such as it is. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I've been here about three months now, and I understand exactly what the "unsourced" template is for, so no need to worry about that. The prior time a longer article I wrote (Peter J. Hamilton) was tagged as unsourced, the tag actually pushed me to get the sources listed, so it did a service. What I am not sure of is whether it's necessary to include an "unsourced" tag when the author has tagged his own article as a stub, because part of the definition of a stub is that stubs typically don't have sources yet. But of course, ultimately the goal is to have real articles about these people, not just dates of service and the like, as in Martin Manton and Richard J. Daronco and Harrie B. Chase, so any tags that will push me (and other parallel contributors) to get there are probably a good thing. Newyorkbrad 00:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having poked around some more, I think what I was thinking of was probably a "public domain source" template or something of that nature. Cf. the "bioguide" template for members of Congress, which produces: " This article incorporates public domain material from Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. Federal government of the United States." Maybe I should generate a similar one for the Judicial Directory. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you claimed that I was adding nonesence to the article. I don't exactly understand what you are referring to. I added valid sources that legitimize the claims that the story has spread. I certainly don't think this constitutes vandalism. [tarzanman21]

Hey Erechtheus, your answer on Kuntayithote talk page[[2]] answered my concern. Thank you. I have a question. Can a user edit another user's page (not talk page) and is it considered proper? Somebody edited my userpage and I don't know how I should deal with that. Kuntan 07:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erechtheus, thanks again for your effort.Kuntan 07:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Erechtheus, thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It finished with an amazing final tally of 160/4/1. I really appreciate your support. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Erechtheus, Please do something about Nair article. Casteist users are keeping on vandalising it by removing its contents. I am not familiar with the templates. Although I have asked for vigilance on the relevant discussion board [[3]] none has paid attention. Kuntan 16:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The revert on my userpage came on second thoughts following your suggestion that the user who put the graphic there might be helping me and also following my making peace with him. I was no way disregarding the help you extended. And I wish to seek your help in the future also, if you wouldn't mind. I am thankful to you for your suggestions. I think a mediation or abuse reporting would be required in the case of the article Nair. Some users are indulging in vandalism out of casteist prejudice. Regards. Kuntan 20:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. _________________________________________________________ Yours truly, Ume$h Ghosh Blog http://umesh4ever.blogspot.com Orkut http://www.orkut.com/Profile.aspx?uid=3632382679451682289 Yahoo Messenger (redacted by Erechtheus) MySpace www.myspace.com/umesh1985 Esnips(Free ebooks and my songs) www.esnips.com/UserProfileAction.ns?id=c7449333-3ba6-40fc-8199-207120342dee _________________________________________________________

Not a problem. Easy mistake to make, and it's now been deleted. Oh, and I don't normally bother with that nothanks template. That's just me though. -- Steel 19:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Newinn bio was just introduced on wikipedia by me, please give it some time to gather information before requesting it to be deleted. Did you bother to read the articles that I presented ?

• Cheerleader Carol Newinn: Raising the Spirits of the Houston Texans
• BN Magazine Up-close

Bnguyen 16:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erechtheus... Thank you very much for your support in my request for adminship. Ultimately, no consensus was reached, and I failed to be promoted, but I am very grateful for your support. Erechtheus, thank you for your supporting opinions. Your trust in me to use the tools means a lot, and I hope that I can live up to your standards at some point in the future. Yours, Thε Halo Θ

I think that there might be a misunderstanding. I did not create the Damon Amos article - I tried to nominate it for deletion. I did not remove any tags from the article. I hope this clears things up. Best regards. Verkhovensky 01:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks a lot for your speedy reply.

Verkhovensky 01:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources now added to the articles for the Callander and Oban Railway and Killin Railway. Also the stations at Killin Junction, Killin and Loch Tay. --Stewart 12:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you're going to use the citation on Neil Finn's albums you may as well start adding them to the other hundreds of thousands of albums on the wikipedia that are unsourced but exist. I'm not citing an actual CD that I own but if it's a citation you want how about checking the bloody history on Neil Finn's page before I changed the format of the discography. Or possibly google the albums and then add them yourself. Or would that be too hard?

Originalsinner 18:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the tone. Not really a morning person (I've just woken up since NZ is in morning mode and it being 7am). Just never had to cite an album before and well the wikipedia is starting to get tediously anal (no offense - I've just had a wikicomics major run-in).

Originalsinner 19:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess I better be truthful then... I don't own the CD's per se, my flatmate does (his taste in music is crappy in my opinion but then again I'm sure he'll say the same about mine.) I think someone else will source Neil Finn's albums for me. He's... "much loved" in NZ, Australia, the UK and most of Europe so I'm sure that'll be done shortly-ish. My run-in with the wikicomics is also what caused my pissy response. I've decided to stick to the music side of the project now because the comic-base is waaaaaaaaaay too dictatorial. Originalsinner 19:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article was simply unsuitable for a prod. It makes an assertion of notability. The reference should either have been removed or it should have gone through AfD. JASpencer 22:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. For some reason, I was under the impression that anyone could remove the notice -except- for the person who originated the article. Now, that I look, however, I guess it doesn't say that anywhere. It seems I've been doing a lot wrong lately; stuff that wouldn't have been wrong a couple of years ago. I was inactive as an editor for awile, and have only recently picked it back up, I suppose I should read all the new guidelines... :) CB Droege 15:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the stub stuff to Cornish Colony Museum. I didn't know how to do that. --Tygerbryght 06:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing to the Tom Dawe article... it's great to see another Wikipedia user with an interest in Newfoundland poets. As far as I can tell, though, The Madonna is a poem from Hemlock Cove and After. The Bibliography is for listing books, not individual poems, so I removed it. See this page. Killick 11:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who created the page The Parent Trap II and added the 'unsucessful' Infobox. I am a relative newcomer and don't know much complicated templates so I copied the template for the film infobox from The Parent Trap. Please could somebody add an infobox for it and the other Parent Trap pages I have created; The Parent Trap 3, The Parent Trap: Hawaiian Honeymoon, The Parent Trap Series and The Twins (The Parent Trap). Indie.Bones 09:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Indie Bones[reply]

Thanks for the confidence boost. Also thanks 4 repliing so quickly. Indie.Bones 09:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Indie Bones[reply]

Hey Erechtheus, I was just looking through your contributions, trying to figure out if you were a bot or not. I read your early postings (glad to hear you are human) and noticed, (because it was on my mind) that they had few or no sources, so I added the template. Southwest Virginia Community College has no sources at all. University of Richmond School of Law has only one, but nothing for its founding date or population. Now that you mention it, the external links probably do contain the information. Does that count? Wikipedia:Citing sources doesn't mention it as a legitimate citation style. Thanks for your help. -- TheMightyQuill 16:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ,

You have thankfully visited and commented on my newly made list Spiders_in_Israel_palestine. I have made this list and few others to be part of the article Biodiversity in Israel Palestine, and not as articles per se. Is what I did the proper way of making lists? or should I do it a different way.

There is no way I can expand these lists. the info in them is just this info as lists.

Plz ur comments --Thameen 00:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. Erechtheus 06:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to assume good faith when I've systematically seen anything contrary to our alliance of nations or depicting it in anything but POV light immediately AFD'd (and I mean immediately, the second anything, no matter how well known or used (for the record, it's the most common phrase expounded in conversations when on the subject I've encountered), it's nerfed or outright removed).

So please forgive my initial skepticism, but without a doubt, the AFD will be one sided as only those motivated to nerf or remove it would be bothered to add their two cents. Bit problematic as far as censorship goes which is why I'm standing behind it so strongly. Jachin 17:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC) (Syndicated to your talk page for your viewing pleasure.)[reply]

There is no problem with Junior level sports teams on Wikipedia -- it is junior level sports players, unless they will be the next Michael Jordan, that are notability issues... I have just started posting stats and am starting to build up histories for the article. If you want to see an example of how this stub process goes... please refer to the teams of the Alberta Junior Hockey League, British Columbia Hockey League, or Ontario Provincial Junior A Hockey League. They are concurrent with OLA Junior B in Lacrosse. Junior A and B lacrosse teams are the direct feeder system for Professional Lacrosse and are notable... I am just starting these articles...

Also, there was no hostility in my actions, please Assume Good Faith. DMighton 05:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, for the past three hours... I've been adding histories to Lacrosse teams. Sadly, I do have a huge workload... I am in the process of calculating statistics for a lot of very old teams... and trying to put together quasi-decent histories to start articles with... sadly, I must admit, they do look rather skimpy at first... I guess I should add Canadian Sports Stub markers or something to the pages I haven't enhanced yet. DMighton 05:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick check of the history of the Emperor Wenxuan of Northern Qi article shows that I am not *the original* author of the article - therefore your message is unfounded. Would you kindly strike out your comment on my talk page? Thanks and happy editing! Suzy64 19:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quote from the speedy tag itself: ...do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. So the warning you gave me is incorrect. Any Wikipedian is well within his or her rights to remove speedy tags from articles if they do not agree with the reason given. As long as you did not create the article in question yourself. Suzy64 19:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [4]. The place was already on the infobox. I've reverted your addition. --Durin 20:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some improvements to the site listed above and feel that the template that you put there should be removed. If there is anything else that I need to do let me know. Thanks John R G 17:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article according to an interview with Mooyman as for his importance, he was the first non-German who won the Knight's Cross and was widely used by the German propoganda, hence he is well known (there also an article about him in the Dutch wikipedia).Ingsoc 22:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Erechtheus, I see you're adding bio templates to talk pages of articles that I created today. Can I be of any help whatsoever? As you can see on my user page I also have some sort of a project running, however it's mainly just something I use myself. SportsAddicted 21:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No really, don't get me wrong, I was just wondering wether I could help you with this or not. I mean, when I create a bio article like the ones you came through today, can I add the template myself? So if you miss the articles for some reason they're still in your biography project. I'm asking this because I also created articles the last few weeks which haven't been added to your project yet. Actually I'm aware of this project only today. For instance the article about Marianne Vos hasn't been added yet. SportsAddicted 23:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got it now, I've been reading there in the past, but didn't check out the template. Doesn't look too difficult, specially when creating the articles yourself. SportsAddicted 02:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the town article is Census India. It is cited in the Demographics section. The reference was placed in the geographic references page so that it need not be repeated in thousands of articles. This is what Rambot did with US towns too. Coudl you please remove the sources tag? Please let me know if you have any questions. - Ganeshk (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The town is being recognized by the Census of India, a department of Government of India. That was source for the geographic location too. Since the census data contained the district name, state name etc. So I am not sure what you want for a source? - Ganeshk (talk) 05:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Happy editing to you too. - Ganeshk (talk) 05:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain your placement of the {notability} tag on Fadil Husayn Salih Hintif and Mehrabanb Fazrollah more fully?

I am not familiar with this particular tag. Is it a new one?

I spent my first year on the wikipedia writing mainly on non-controversial topics. And I didn't find that involved me in any serious disputes. I spent my second year on the wikipedia writing mainly on topics related to the "war on terror". Controversial topics.

At first I found that I was triggering other contributors to challenge my contributions - on the grounds that I was showing a bias. Infrequently they were correct. I aim for an NPOV, but I don't think anyone succeeds 100% of the time. And I welcome when a civil correspondent helps me fix the occasional lapse. But most of the time it was due to a simple misunderstanding, or my correspondents were, innocently, mounting a challenge that illustrated their bias.

I responded with a civil inquiry every time someone said they thought something I had written showed bias, or when they put an {npov} tag on it. I found that, generally, most people who said something felt biased to them, or put an {npov} tag, could not be specific about which passages they thought showed bias. So, I felt it was safe for me to assume that they either found whatever explanation I offered was sufficient. Or they found they could not point to a specific passage.

I am afraid that a minor fraction of the challenges I received were from contributors who were not interested in improving the wikipedia, merely to censoring instances of material that they thought made the USA look bad. One contributor, an administrator no less, expressed the view, in an {afd}, that ANY article about a Guantanamo detainee was inherently anti-American. In other words, the topic itself was inherently biased.

Well, anyhow, either I have learned to avoid innocently leaving triggers that give readers the false impression my writing is biased, or I am being more careful. I rarely get challenges over bias. And I don't think I have had a serious one in at least six months.

What I am getting is challenges over notability. And what I am afraid is that I am left with the impression that some of those challenges are coming from people who just don't want to see material that they think reflects poorly on the USA covered on the wikipedia, and I have done such a good job in referencing my contributions from authoritative, verifiable sources, without straying from a neutral point of view, that they have to fall back to challenges over notability.

I strongly disagree with using notability as a criteria for deletion. Notability is far too subjective. It is inherently vulnerable to systematic bias. It is not an official wikipedia policy. It is merely a guideline that reflects some people's opinion. I regard WP:BIO as a tool that helps some people decide whether an article deserves closer scrutiny to see whether it violates WP:VER, WP:NPOV or WP:NOR. WP:VER, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR are official policies.

Americans are disproportionately represented on the wikipedia. And this exerts an unconscious systematic bias on the wikipedia, that we are all supposed to be keeping in mind, and doing our best to combat. Please conduct a thought experiment. Please imagine that there was another country that had rounded up some American citizens, and was holding them without laying any charges against them, claiming they could hold them indefinitely, claiming the Geneva Conventions didn't apply to them. Imagine there was strong circumstantial evidence that this other nation was humiliating, abusing, and, in some cases, torturing those American prisoners. Can you imagine that anyone would consider, for one second, challenging the notability of those prisoners?

If you played any role in the drafting of the notability tag I would encourage you to scale back its official sounding tone. Notability is not an official wikipedia policy. And, IMO, it is too subjective for it to become a useful policy. Your tag should not imply that it is official policy to remove articles based on notability when it is not an official policy.

For the record I think these two individuals are notable for a number of reasons:

• They are both victims of serious violations of the Geneva Conventions. Article five of the Third Geneva Convention obliges a captor to extend all the protections of the Geneva Conventions to all captives, unless a "competent tribunal" has determined they don't qualify for those protections. AR-190 lays out how the US military is supposed to conduct those competent tribunals. They have held most of those guys for almost five years, and they still haven't convened a single competent tribunal.
• How close a look did you take at the allegations against these two men? The Bush administration routinely described the Guantanamo detainees as "The worst of the worst". Up until the release of the transcripts this March the public didn't have any good ways to come to an informed opinion as to the credibility of this claim. Now that the documents have been been released we can come to an informed opinion. When examined, in detail, the allegations bear out the conclusions of the Denbeaux study. When examined in detail the allegations against the detainees do not substantiate the claims of Bush administration. Admiral Harry Harris, the current camp commandant, claims there are no innocent men held in Guantanamo. My personal conclusion is that far less than half the detainees who went through their Combatant Status Review Tribunals should have been stripped of the protections of the Geneva Conventions, following a proper "competent tribunal". The US military did convene competent tribunals following the first Gulf War. They considered the cases of something like 1200 captives. 70% were classified as innocent civilians. The other 30% were classified as POWs. None of them were stripped of the protections of the Geneva Convention.
• Did you see that one of the justifications for continuing to detain Fadil Husayn Salih Hintif was he was captured wearing a Casio digital watch? A number of newspaper articles have been published about the men who were being held, at least in part, because they were wearing a casio digital watch. It is a highly controversial justification. IMO it is controversial enough it should be reported in detail. The allegations state that the detainees were wearing a particular model of casio, the Casio F91W. But, clearly, at least four of those guys were wearing different models. At least two of them were wearing the much more expensive Casio Prayer Watch. At least another two were captured wearing models that incorporated a calculator.

My guess is that those who do not regard articles about the Guantanamo detainees as notable don't recognize that there are any controversies surrounding the prison's conditions, the failure of the Bush administration to comply with the Geneva Conventions, the nature of their interrogation, force-feeding, detention without a chance to learn or refute the evidence against them. IMO that shows their bias, not mine. Without regard to whether one subscribes to the Bush administration's interpretation, or one subscribes to another interpretation, that there are controversies is undeniable. I wouldn't work on these articles if there were no controversies.

But there are controversies. And the public deserves a chance to use the wikipedia to learn the details for themselves.

I see from your user page, you are a lawyer. How much time have you spent looking into the legal aspects of the cases of the Guantanamo detainees? So, are you a Clarence Darrow kind of lawyer, or a Johnny Cochrane kind of lawyer? That is a personal question, you don't have to answer that. But I urge you to read some of the transcripts for yourself. You might try starting with Fouad Al Rabia's

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 16:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This page is not about a single person. It is about the Nawabdom (kingdom). I'm not sure WPBiography would apply to this article - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 20:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm a deletionist. But, I noted that it was not a vanity article, just a poorly written article about what the author considered a notable model. I don't believe in frightening new users away, so I suggested an AfD. No problems if it was voted speedy delete. utcursch | talk 06:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Erechtheus. I removed your merge tag from the General strike/Summary article. The article is intended as a brief summary of the main General strike article, and is being used by the Summaries project at the WikiProject Organized Labour. Cheers. --Bookandcoffee 09:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're ready for a RFC yet! Give us a bit of time to tinker around with it. Your comments would be welcome on the talk page. It's a very small project right now, with only 5 articles using the format. The biggest thrust is to try and establish a useful setup for translating articles into other languages. Did you check out the connecting page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour/Internationalisation?

I'm not sure how to respond to your concerns. NPOV doesn't really seem like an issue here, and although there is a bit of a possibility of lag from the main article, they are connected by the {{Article summary}} on each main page, so they're not going to drift too far apart either figuratively or literally. In any case, let us know what you think. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 10:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for your patience. I just wanted to say that I appreciate your willingness to look at this idea. I'm not trying to push your questions away to "get my own way". You bring up a good point about the possibility of a POV fork. Our other choice is to create the summaries on the internationalisation page, but then they are completely static and away from the view of other editors. I'll start a conversation on the talk pages about this. Your idea of RFC is a good one as well - it's just that new ideas are sometimes difficult to nurture in this environment, and I'd like to get as many of our ducks in a row as possible before generating too much attention. --Bookandcoffee 16:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting that info on the page. I'll wait a day or two before putting my comments up - so others have a chance to think about it without my opinion. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 21:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]