User talk:The Banner/Archive01

Thank you

WikiThanks

...for catching my typo in Hill 262. Your wikignoming is much appreciated :) EyeSerene^talk 19:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Joost Platje

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Joost Platje. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joost Platje. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Eikel

Prachtig!, hahaha:) Je hebt wel gelijk hoor. Ik zal je hier verder met rust laten. groetjes, 83.87.168.27 (talk) 10:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mitchell Landzaat

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Encouragement

Eddylandzaat, do not let ClaudioSantos discourage you from editing. TickleMeister (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! I'm a stubborn guy (but I can get angry). Eddylandzaat (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Refrain of edit warring and/or disruptive. Let discuss in the discuss page as I'm doing. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a tiny question. Who of us got blocked for editwarring? So stop kidding and start doing trustworthy NPOV-edits. Eddylandzaat (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

Dear ClaudioSantos. May I get your attention for WP:3RR. I am not editwarring because I only reverted two times. On the other hand you are clearly editwarring with at least three reverts! Eddylandzaat (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm encouraging you to discuss the contents in the discuss page instead of reverting. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

ClaudioSantos has now reverted SIX times within 24 hours; the incident has been reported here. Xanthoxyl ^< 22:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

AFD on JEFF UNAEGBU

Hello Eddylandzaat! I am very new here but hoping to improve. Please thanks for helping to improve the Jeff Unaegbu article. I understand that lack of sufficient sources led to this article being placed in deletion debate. Thus, there were recent painstaking efforts to get sources via the Internet in order to salvage it from being deleted. Please Sir, if you have the time, would you take a look at the recent painstaking changes in the article and contribute positively to the ongoing debate about its deletion? Thanks for being a friend. Jeff Unaegbu (talk) 06:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Jeff Unaegbu (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of vandalism

I removed uncited, ungrammatical sentences. This is not wp:VANDALISM. If refuse to assume good faith in this manner again, I shall report you on WP:ANI OzOke (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You removed it as edits from a banned Wikipedian. It were my edits and I'n not banned! SEcondly the edit where so far from the truth that I consider it vandalisme, sorry if you don't agree with that. Eddylandzaat (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Point Airfield

Hi, re your comments at AfD, unfortunately the airfield would appear not to reach the relevant notability threshold, and the article will probably be deleted. This is irrespective of the wishes of the owner of the airfield and based purely on Wikipedia's standards. There is a list of airports in Ireland, where the airfield gets a mention. Mjroots (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I had warned the author that he was running the risk of losing the article at all. That it lacks notability was something I was aware of when I started "to rescue" the article. What me bothers most is that I have likely lost a real life friend, because he couldn't see the difference between an encyclopedia and free webspace. I'm an editor for 5 years now (most on the Dutch wp) so I know quite well what I was doing when rewriting the article. It's a pity it ends up this way. Eddylandzaat (talk) 12:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

As you will have noticed, the article was deleted - on notability grounds. Mjroots (talk) 09:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Irish infobox

I've made User:Dr. Blofeld/Ireland. The current version is above and the version that would replace it is below. If you really genuinely think the first is of higher quality then that's your choice I guess.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I stil prefer the old localized one. The second is incorrect anyway, because Ireland uses nowadays the metric-system, not the imperial. Eddylandzaat (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

As this is a global encyclopedia, both metric and imperial measurements should be given. Mjroots (talk) 09:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Quality restaurant

The article Quality restaurant has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Definition not an encyclopaedia entry

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. noq (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Roscoff Restaurant

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Roscoff Restaurant requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Cind.amuse 03:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tagging of Josh Norman

Just thought I'd point out that a {{db-vand}} template would be much more appropriate than {{db-nonsense}} here. The text in that article was neither incoherent nor gibberish. Although the article may have been nonsensical by our standards, that template only really applies for keymashing and the like. I did delete as vandalism, though. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 03:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I nominated on the way I was used to do it on the Dutch WP. Have to find my way in it. Eddylandzaat (talk) 03:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nom of National biscuit association

Hello there. I just wanted to tell you that I replaced your G1 tag with a G3 tag, as {{db-vandalism}} would be more appropriate in this situation. Cheers, —mc10 (t/c) 03:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

en-wp works slightly different then I'm used from the Dutch WP. But I learn from this! Thanks for the change. Eddylandzaat (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ardnacrushna (village)

A tag has been placed on Ardnacrushna (village), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Copy of Ardnacrusha (village). Was a redirect after I had found a misspelling in the name.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Eddylandzaat (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at Crosstemplejay's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at My76Strat's talk page.
Message added 02:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Welcome

Hello, Eddylandzaat! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! My76Strat (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Confirmation

Please confirm that you have requested User:Night of the Big Wind Bot at WP:ACC. -- DQ (t) (e) 00:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what to do, so I made a statement on the talkpage. Is that what you wanted? Night of the Big Wind (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Right here was fine, just had to make sure it was you.  Account Created. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Tools/Spamlist

Hi, there.
I was wondering when you were browsing Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Tools/Spamlist I came across your name. I guess you put it wrong (here) and I was wondering if you could correct it ([1])Arman Cagle ^{(Contact me EMail Me Contribs)} Please remember if you have any questions, please reply on my talk page. 20:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed Night of the Big Wind (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

William Smith Ziegler

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of William Smith Ziegler, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.rcamuseum.com/English/Great%20Gunners/ziegler.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I tagged this article as a possible copyright violation because although you changed the text, it remains closely paraphrased to the original. I would tag your talk with this template but I figure providing the link is better suited as you do not appear to be a brand new user and most of the info may not be helpful. Consider rewriting the article at Talk:William Smith Ziegler/temp. Try to find other sources as well, using one source can lead to problems like this. Any questions, let me know.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

They way this process is done is extremely rude and offensive. Especially the very quick template is disgusting. But okay, in a glorious moment I decided to use another term to seach with, and found some other sources. The process of rewriting is visible on User:Eddylandzaat/Workpage3. Text is bold is not yet processed. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia takes copyrights seriously, it is a legal matter beyond policy too. Copyright problems are not uncommon on this encyclopedia as well and the tags are used for most of them. I am sure it is offensive and rude to other people as well when their work is plagiarized. Especially the folks who copy and paste an entire work. I assume your problem was in good faith and because much of it was from a single source. In those cases, it can be hard to avoid close-paraphrasing. I will look over your temp later and if you need any help, let me know.--NortyNort (Holla) 22:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Accusation of Vandalism

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Existence of God. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Didn't know adding factual as well as beneficial information was considered vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.167.117 (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider factual and beneficial. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Pigeons

Please don't accuse me of vandalizing when I didn't. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icex15 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You are now reported for vandalisme and editwarring. You should have looked if you were adding the information on the right place. If you had looked at Feral Pigeon, you should have seen that the unsourced information you added was placed entirely wrong and was already mentioned here. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Well sorry I didn't know you were in charge of Wikipedia. You don't have to be so rude and inconsiderate. I guess you're going to report me again even though I didn't do anything wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icex15 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not in charge of Wikipedia. I only noticed that you were screwing up things. Just check out the next time if your addition is really in the right spot. (It was not). And if you add something, make sure that it is properly sourced (it was not) and definitely: don't put the same information (or variations on the same theme) back seven times without using the talkpage. Please read the your own talkpage. The blue template contains a lot of very usefull information. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Advice

You have been very disrespectful towards me insulting me multiple times now saying I am whining ? That's very immature of you. I only asked you how do you get away from breaking the rules of Wikipedia. That's called a question not whining. You keep changing the subject whenever I asked you that question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icex15 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

To answer my questions why I get away with it:

1. because you started an editwar immediately after showing up on Wikipedia
2. because I start a discussion to get answers when I don't understand actions from others
3. because I takes advice from others. (hint: sign you edits on talkpages)
4. because I did not think that I was right and all others wrong with my first edits
5. because I think that you are annoying

(6 because I am a experienced editor)

Night of the Big Wind (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Because you are an experienced editor. Is that supposed to make you better than people who don't use Wikipedia ? You think I am annoying ? I think you're annoying too. I never asked for you're help and you keep harassing me to how to edit and study all of the rules, when I already told you I am not. Maybe I would have taken advice from you if you weren't so rude to me. In fact you insulted me twice which violates part of the civility code of Wikipedia http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying_incivility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icex15 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

@Night of the Big Wind: I just responded at WP:WQA. Perhaps I should add that I think you should simply delete the sections from Icex15 (I guess you know that you are entitled to remove almost anything from your own talk page; delete my comment as well). Any further comments here from Icex15 should simply be reverted, and I suggest you leave it to others to respond to any comments from the user made elsewhere. I won't bother watching the article because there are plenty of good editors there, but if you ever want my thoughts, contact me at my talk. Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Email

Dear Night of the Big Wind, I have send you an email. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 06:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Received and answered. Thanks. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

• News and notes: ArbCom referendum goes live; US National Archives residency; financial planning; brief news

• In the news: Collaboration with academia; world heritage; xkcd; eG8 summit; ISP subpoena; brief news

• WikiProject report: The Royal Railway

• Featured content: Whipping fantasies, American–British naval rivalry, and a medieval mix of purity and eroticism

• Arbitration report: Update – injunction from last week has expired

• Technology report: Wikimedia down for an hour; What is: Wikipedia Offline?

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The House (restaurant)

The article The House (restaurant) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lacks substantial coverage. Seems promotional.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rob (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Walton and Johnson

Per Wikipedia's Identifying Reliable sources:

The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.

Please kindly stop removing citations for radio broadcasts from the above article.209.34.48.230 (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting in this is that you miss an esstial part: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The following specific examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.

Wikipedia:Verifiability is the codeword here. How can we verify the information? Which third party (so not you or the broadcasting company) has archived this broadcast? Where should I go to verify it? The broadcast itself, is not strictly a source. You better take care of third party sources and make sure these sources are reliable. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bord Bia

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Bord Bia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Amazing! I have picked the subject from Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Other_categorization_schemes#Ireland. And why immediately a speedy deletion instead of a normal AfD-procedure? Night of the Big Wind (talk) 11:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

• Board elections: Time to vote

• News and notes: Board resolution on controversial content; WMF Summer of Research; indigenous workshop; brief news

• In the news: 60% of doctors use Wikipedia; growing in India; brief news

• Recent research: Various metrics of quality and trust; leadership; nerd stereotypes

• WikiProject report: Make your own book with Wikiproject Wikipedia-Books

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Two cases pending resolution; temporary desysop; dashes/hyphens update

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

non-voluntary euthanasia

The paragraph your are continuosly reinserting is WP:OR: the source does not say what that paragraph claims. Is that your opinion which you are trying to force to include by falsely atributing it to a source that does not claim it?. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It is very nice that you try to remove unwelcome text, but I don't buy that. You will have to proof that it is Original Research. As long as you don't do that, I regard your removals als vandalism! Night of the Big Wind (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong and shameless lying. You are the one who must prove the source claims that statement about non-voluntary euthanasia. I've read it and it does not. That source (here is the abstract: [2])is an study about Deliberate termination of life in newborns in The Netherlands; an review of all 22 reported cases between 1997 and 2004, but it never claims that "In the modern world, the term (non-voluntary euthanasia) is usually applied to medical situations, such as the termination of newborns born with severe spina bifida (child euthanasia), performed in the Netherlands under the Groningen Protocol". The source does not even use the term non-voluntary euthanasia not even the term Groningen Protocol. You provide the exactly page where the source claim that statement or you are vandalizing, falsely attributing an statement to a source and forcing your WP:OR WP:POV. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Further down in the article it does... Night of the Big Wind (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it does not. You should copy-paste a quote of the source to prove it or you are blatantly lying. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you refrain from personal attacks? Thanks!

Because you made an POV-issue out of it if have removed part of the lead. But you go far in pushing your Point of View! Night of the Big Wind (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not personal-attacking you. Actually it is a blatantly lie when falsely attributing to a source an statemnt that it does not claim. And I also remember that sentence was firstly inserted by an user who was expulsed due sock-puppetry, well known and well expulsed because of using dirty tactics in order to force his editions, you should know him as you were also his victim:[3]-- ClaudioSantos (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Forget it, my friend. I am going to report you! Night of the Big Wind (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It would not change the matter: that sentence in the lead is falsely attributing to a source a statement it does not claim. That is WP:OR and misleading -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

And DO NOT change the layout or my text on MY TALKPAGE. You are POV-pushing and you know that. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

G12 speedies

Please be aware that articles are not eligible for speedy deletion under G12, to quote from the criteria, "Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained." Hence I've removed your speedy request from Juan Chang and reverted to a non-infringing version. If you're not already you should also be aware that Twinkle only provides a summary of the speedy delete reasons and you should be aware of the full criteria at WP:CSD before tagging an article. Dpmuk (talk) 10:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

To be true, much of the deletion process is so complicated, that I have not a clue how it works. The numerous codes are still too much for me. I am happy enough with finding a way that is for 80% correct. In fact, I prefer to explain my reasons in normal language rather then in codewords. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I just found another case of copyvio (Duplicate Detector) in the article James of Jülich. I like to see how you solve this, mainly to learn from it. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If it wasn't for the phrase "later mitigated in execution" I'd say that was definitely fine. All the other matches are common enough phrases that I strongly suspect that, taken together with the different ordering, the editor wrote it in their own words and so we don't have an issue (see WP:PARAPHRASE). Although the use of that one term is slightly worrying I don't think it's enough to be a problem so I don't think I'd even bother to tag it with {{Close paraphrasing}}. That said I don't want to lead you astray so I'll ask for someone else to give a second opinion. Dpmuk (talk)

Since the Catholic Encyclopedia is in the public domain, it's not a copyvio (we have whole articles copied verbatim from that source, with just a template for attribution, as with the 1911 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica). I don't think the wording is close enough to be considered a problem, but you could always just stick the {{Catholic}} tag at the bottom if you want. Deor (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, of course. I know that was something at the back of mind that was saying that source was probably PD but I couldn't work out what - thanks for pointing it out. Thanks also for the second opinion on the paraphrasing (as if it was closely paraphrased we should still attribute it even if it was PD). Dpmuk (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

• News and notes: Wikipedians 90% male and largely altruist; 800 public policy students add 8.8 million bytes; brief news

• In the news: Revere, Palin and Colbert generate activity; British Wikipedia "cleanser"; brief news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Aircraft

• Featured content: Featured lists hit the main page

• Arbitration report: More workshop proposals in Tree shaping case; further votes in PD of other case

• Technology report: 1.18 extension bundling; mobile testers needed; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

AfD of Elon University School of Law

Per your request I have performed a non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elon University School of Law. Cheers! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Kobako

Hello, I've expanded the article and added six references. I would appreciate your comments. Cullen328 (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I concede that the original author did a poor job stating notability and failed to provide references. You state that in your opinion, it is "not up to the new page patroller to start searching if a subject is possible notable". However, when you take an article to AfD, and state "non notable" as the complete deletion argument, then by implication, you are telling other editors that you have done a notability check, and have verified that the topic is not notable. This particular topic is clearly notable. With the array of Google search tools at our disposal, a notability check can usually be completed in less than a minute. So all I ask is check for notability before you state "non notable". No hard feelings. Every one of these discussions is a learning experience. I wish you well. Cullen328 (talk) 00:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Next time I will state that the contents of the do not show evidence of notability. But still in my conviction, a new page patroller should only judge the article as it is there and then. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:BEFORE and realize that we are here to build an encyclopedia, not accidentally tear it down. I know that new page patrollers deal with a lot of awful junk. Just be aware of the possibility that a notable topic may be poorly presented in a new stub, and take a few seconds to do a notability check if there is any reasonable possibility that the topic is notable. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks that we just don't agree on this point. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

• News and notes: WMF Board election results; Indian campus ambassadors gear up; Wikimedia UK plans; Malayalam Wikisource CD; brief news

• In the news: Wikipedia could become trusted medical resource; neologism controversy; news in brief

• WikiProject report: The Elemental WikiProject

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: One case comes to a close; initiator of a new case blocked as sockpuppet

• Technology report: Engineering department restructured; "break MediaWiki and be reverted"; news in brief

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

County Clare

NotBW,

No problem, obviously your call. Sorry if this is the wrong way of getting back to you. I was merely looking to find the county town of Clare and was a little surprised when it was far from obvious.

1. 'County seat'. I now realise Ennis appears in the left-hand summary box, but I could not originally recognise it there, because of unfamiliarity. While I note the expression 'County seat' appears elsewhere, I suggest in this entry it is importing an anachronistic and so unhelpful term. As the respective Wikipedia entries confirm, 'County seat' appears a specifically North American term, while 'County town' is correct for Ireland. County town should therefore surely take precedence, perhaps along with either "or seat", "/seat" or "(seat)" to assist US users? While I accept neither term is completely opaque to people not familar with them, 'town' seems the more obcvious description of Ennis?

2. I was therefore surprised to see no other reference to the county town, as I would intuitively expect to see the administrative centre normally feature the odd time in an entry for any geographical/political unit. For example, entries for both neighbouring Galway and Kerry each refer to their county town a handful of times, whilst Dublin makes over a dozen appearances in the Ireland entry.

3. 'Local Government and Dail Eireann Representation'. The next thing I did was look in this sectin. If you do feel it right to exclude any reference to local government across the county - being based in, and run from out of, Ennis - then surely this title should be revised to remove "Local Government and" to avoid confusion.

Hope this helps.

JSN2849 (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

• News and notes: ArbCom database theft; WikiLove to roll out on the English Wikipedia; brief news

• In the news: Russian president uploads to Wikimedia Commons; brief news

• WikiProject report: The Continuous Convention: WikiProject Comics

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision for Tree shaping case

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of The House (restaurant) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The House (restaurant) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The House (restaurant) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Oonissie (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

• News and notes: Picture of the Year 2010; data challenge; brief news

• In the news: WikiLove roll-out; €25,000 in damages for being removed from Wikipedia; brief news

• WikiProject report: The Star-Spangled WikiProject

• Featured content: Two newly promoted portals

• Arbitration report: Arb resigns while mailing list leaks continue; Motion re: admin

• Technology report: June report: Virginia datacenter, parser, user profiles; WikiLove 1.0; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Hello Night of the Big Wind,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 20:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)

What vandalism is

I don't know what you think you're doing at Talk:Jack_Kevorkian but you need to take a second and review WP:VAND to learn what vandalism is. More specifically, calling an edit "vandalism" when it is not (repeatedly) can be considered a personal attack, and your actions in general today seem to be borderline hounding. Take a step back and remember that you are supposed to be contributing to an encyclopedia, not finding places to pick fights. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

In other words, take a moment to relax. If Shirik is in the mood for giving advice s/he might want to have a talk with User:ClaudioSantos also. Xanthoxyl ^< 20:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope you make a chat to Claudio too. Unfortunately, I consider editing in someone elses contributions one of the most sneaky and treacherous forms of vandalisme... Night of the Big Wind (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of what you think of it, at least here, it is not vandalism by Wikipedia's definition of the word. So you should stop reverting it, calling it such. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I will call it in future: Agressive disrupting POV-edit Night of the Big Wind (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with NotBW. One does not edit in messages that are not written by yourself.

If you would do that in mine, I would report you as well. No one appreciates that, it irritates people, and above all, it is a lack of respect. So my advise is, that when someone reverts your edit, then show respect, but better still, stop editing other peoples messages.--Kind regards, Ro de Jong (Talk to me!) 08:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

For Your Information:

You gave us the link WP:VAND. What does it say?

“ Talk page vandalism

Illegitimately deleting or editing other users' comments. However, it is acceptable to blank comments constituting vandalism, internal spam, or harassment or a personal attack. It is also acceptable to identify an unsigned comment. Users are also permitted to remove comments from their own user talk pages. A policy of prohibiting users from removing warnings from their own talk pages was considered and rejected on the grounds that it would create more issues than it would solve.

”

I will place this on your talk page as well Shirik. --Kind regards, Ro de Jong (Talk to me!) 08:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

There is an explicit difference between blanking someone else's comments and removing content from a banned user. Sockpuppetry is unacceptable and cleaning up after those that abuse multiple accounts is appropriate. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

For your info, Shirik: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ClaudioSantos/Archive. He should stop moaning about sockpuppets, because he was one himself. And this sockpuppet was used for block evasion, editwarring and POV-pushing... Night of the Big Wind (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe?

Just check it out as your help woul be much appreciated. --Kind regards, Ro de Jong (Talk to me!) 22:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No, thanks. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

• From the editor: Stepping down

• Higher education summit: Wikipedia in Higher Education Summit recap

• News and notes: Wikipedians' surfing habits explored, Sloan Foundation renews $3M grant

• In the news: Britannica and Wikipedia compared; Putin award criticized; possible journalistic sockpuppeting

• WikiProject report: Listening to WikiProject Albums

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Tree shaping case comes to a close

• Technology report: WMF works on its release strategy; secure server problems

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Stem

Beste The Banner/Archive01,

Zojuist heb ik me aangemeld. Omdat ik niet op mezelf ga stemmen wil ik graag mijn stem aan jou geven. Je kunt tegen-, neutraal of voorstemmen, inclusief een toelichting. Ik zal jouw tekst en stem een van de komende dagen naar de aanmeldpagina kopieren.

Met vriendelijke groet,

nl:user:Blueknight 20:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Wat je ook stemt, ik zal er geen enkele consequentie eraan verbinden.

Aha, het kostte wat zoeken maar je hebt je dus aangemeld als moderator. Helaas, ik kan niets voor jou betekenen. Ten eerste ben ik geblokkeerd, ten tweede heb ik daarop nl-wp verlaten. Als een arbitragecommissie zich gaat gedragen als een rechtbank en besluit over zaken zonder te vertellen welk bewijsmateriaal er in gebracht heeft, hoeft het van mij niet meer. Dat heeft niets met jouw lidmaatschap te maken, maar wel met de totaal verkeerde rol die de AC zich heeft aangemeten. En al er dan ook nog dubbele standaarden worden gehanteerd door moderatoren en AC, bedank ik voor de eer. Ik wil verder niets meer met nl-wp te maken hebben. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Beste The Banner/Archive01,

Wat betreft jouw blokkade heb je gelijk, een geblokkeerde gebruiker kan niet stemmen. De discussie met Marrakech op de aanmeldpagina heeft me doen inzien dat het doneren van mijn stem aan jou als een vorm van blokontduiking gezien kan worden. Ik trek daarom mijn aanbod in.

Met vriendelijke groet, Hxq (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

De discussie op de aanmeldpagina maakt alleen duidelijk dat er een hoop verzuurde mensen op nl-wp zitten. Mensen die blijkbaar ook deze pagina volgen omdat ik tot hun vijanden behoor. Het is doodjammer dat zij wel kijken naar het aanbod, maar niet naar mijn reactie erop. Maar goed, als er iemand zwart gemaakt moet worden, ga je niet naar woord en tegenwoord luisteren.

Ongelukkigerwijs heeft het feit wat wij ondanks alle meningsverschillen toch "on speaking terms" zijn gebleven, nu een negatieve impact op jouw kandidatuur. Gelukkig lijkt het geen al te zware effecten te hebben. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Voor alle simpele zielen die uit zijn op persoonlijke wraak, liever dan een encyclopedie op te bouwen: ik ben weg en blijf weg. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Broken link

Hello! Do you have any idea why this edit with Wikipedia Cleaner version 1.09 broke a link? (The software removed a bracket at the end of the link.) HeyMid (contribs) 07:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It was not the software that broke the link. After fixing the link to a disambiguation-page, I had a tekst [[Gislaved, Sweden|Gislaved, Sweden]] I removed a bracket too much by fixing this. As you can see I did that more (Maribor and the second time Gislaved). WikiCleaner signals the problem, but does not fix it! Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

J

I know you're currently working on reverting that one IP's edits on the J article, but I would argue that this edit is not actually vandalism, even though you marked it as so. The point of that part of the article is to discuss the letter in different languages, it appears as though he is adding information on the letter in Korean. --Fbifriday (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Korean version uses other symbols: Korean Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Could you explain how that edit (^) is vandalism? I'm not really seeing it. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 15:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

a) the context of the series edits of Mr. Anonymous. b) the lack of an interwiki with those symbols. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Kate Young, etc.

Hello. I see that you tagged three redirects for speedy deletion under G8. G8 is usually used to request deletion of redirects to pages that have been, or are going to be, deleted. That doesn't appear to be the case here.

Could you explain, either here or on my Talk page, why you want these redirects deleted? Thanks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I have tagged them because they created a loop. Kate Young was a redirect to Catherine Young, a dab-page. I was linking on the dab-page to a person, but the redirect brought me straight back. Night of the Big Wind _talk 08:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Re your message: Sorry, but the non-deletion was correct. The target of the redirect exists, therefore G8 would not apply. I see what you are trying to do with Template:Texas Pageant Winners and Miss Texas USA. The fix would be to either create an article for Katie Young, unlinking the names on the dabpage that link back to the dabpage as 88.109.60.234 did, or changing the links on the dabpage to a specific redlinked name and then changing the links on other articles to that redlinked article. For example, with Kate Young, the Australian swimmer, you would change the dabpage link to Kate Young (swimmer) and then change 2000 Oceania Swimming Championships and 2000 Oceania Swimming Championships links to Kate Young (swimmer). Having a link on an article/template go to a dabpage is not unreasonable if there is no article at this time on that person. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Placing of the terrorism infobox at List of organisations known as the Irish Republican Army article

My view that the only thing more injudicious in placing the terrorism infobox at List of organisations known as the Irish Republican Army was edit warring to revert its removal. If you make that edit, or similar, again without a clear and current consensus to do so I will block you indefinitely - for as long as it takes you to recognise the requirement to consider the effect of your actions before taking them. I am of the opinion that if you were not aware of the likely consequences to the editing atmosphere by your contribution, you are not sufficiently versed in the issues to be of benefit - and if you were then you are not fit to remain an editor. This is an official warning, and the only one you will receive regarding this issue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? If you try to get your point across in such a rude way, you are totally wrong. First thing you should do is give me arguments why my action was wrong by giving me links to prior discussions. If not, you can expect a complaint about incivility! Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I have reviewed my comments - and I fail to see where I was rude; you may not like what I had to say, but that is a different thing entirely. I shall ask at my talkpage whether other editors feel my language was inappropriate, however, and be guided by their comments. You are always able to bring a complaint about my actions at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents at any point.
I do not need to find the discussion(s) where consensus was decided, as that is your task should you wish to challenge it. You are on notice that there is an existing consensus, and that you should not make edits contrary to it in the meantime. I am sure that the editors habitually editing the article will be able to provide you with links, should you ask. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You were unnecessary rude, threatening to block me straight away (I had only reverted twice). But still I do not have any link to a discussion. Not from you, not from anybody else, nor at the template, nor at the article. Without that, I consider the consensus as non-existant and organized by shouting and roaring. Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The Article List of organisations known as the Irish Republican Army falls under WP:1RR per the notice at the top of the Article Talk page. All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions. All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.

There is a clear guideline on Wikipedia about the use of the word Terrorism. Please read it before editing.

• Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter

--Domer48_'fenian' 18:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Aha, he could have told be that! But still I think he is not fit as an editor, admin and oversighter, acting so blunt and rude. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

• News and notes: WMF Annual plan; Article Feedback tool; university outreach; brief news

• In the news: Fine art; surreptitious sanitation; the politics of kyriarchic marginalization; brief news

• WikiProject report: Earn $$$ free pharm4cy WORK FROM HOME replica watches ViAgRa!!!

• Featured content: Historic last launch of the Space Shuttle Endeavour; Teddy Roosevelt's threat to behead official; 18th-century London sex manual

• Arbitration report: Motion passed to amend 2008 case: topic ban and reminder

• Technology report: Code Review backlog almost zero; What is: Subversion?; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Food And Drink!

Hello Night of the Big Wind! Welcome to WikiProject Food and Drink! We are a group of editors who work together to better organize information in articles related to food and drink.

The goals of WikiProject Food and Drink:

• Consensus about the organization of food and drink related articles.
• Coordination of editing on food, drink, and restaurant related articles.
• Categorization of food, drink, and restaurant articles.
• Creation, expansion, and maintenance of food, drink, and restaurant articles.
• To help maintain the food portal.

What you can do right now:

• You might wish to add {{User WP Food and drink}} to your userpage.
• If you haven't done so already, please consider adding your name to the list of participants.

Once again, welcome to the project!

Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 09:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

• Wikimedian in Residence interview: Wikimedian in Residence on Open Science: an interview with Daniel Mietchen

• News and notes: Oral citations; the state of global development; a gentler Huggle; brief news

• In the news: Open access clash with copyright; rising reader satisfaction; the wiki-correlates of geopolitical instability; brief news

• Recent research: Talk page interactions; Wikipedia at the Open Knowledge Conference; Summer of Research

• WikiProject report: Musing with WikiProject Philosophy

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: New case opened; hyphens and dashes update; motion

• Technology report: Protocol-relative URLs; GSoC updates; bad news for SMW fans; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Euthanasia

Difficult one. In my opinion the poster is a blatant lie to the German people. It puts the whole T4-action down as an economic problem, while it was blatant murder. The scope of the murders was far wider then people with hereditary diseases. Als severly handicapped WW1-veterans were murdered under this scheme. In fact T4 has nothing to do with euthanasia, except that it was used as coverup. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if you can consider, not just answer me, but seriously consider: how are you so sure that nowdays the term euthanasia is not an euphemism being used for the same basic purposes (reducing economic costs to increase profits, racism based on revulsion, fear and hate against illness and ill people)? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It is possible that the term is misused for murder. By any means, that is often hard to detect.

But I am convinced that nowadays it will merely be individual cases and not a pre-determined campaign like T4. I am absolutely convinced, partly based on own experiences, that the grand majority of the cases of euthanasia is performed to end needless and endless unbearable suffering in the best interest of the person involved (children under the legal limit to decide themselves, coma-patients and so on) or at request from the person involved.

Not one person can garantuee that the term is not misused for murder for the reasons you have stated above. And I guess that not one person is willing to testify in court that he did commit murder under the cover of euthanasia for those reasons. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Certainly we have to consider the paticular cases, and I will, back to them. I have cited one case that you read, and also Hemshaw have cited another. But, just for a moment let me ask some questions on the general grounds. Were german people solely fools being deceived or are we still comparable fools being deceived by similar means or moreover being deceived by perfectionated means? In this world where millions have to die in the daily wars because of economic grounds, why euthanasia is to be assumed to be out of that economical and imperialistic logic? do not you tend to be skeptical about those things that seems to be apparently so evident? Can we really trust in the claimed intentions? Can we really trust at that rate in the allegedly strict legal controls? Can we rally trust on medical prognostics and exams and statistics, which are the main basis to take the so called "decision"? Why people became so skeptical on the claimed humanitarian an democratic reasons leading to the Irak war or leading to a an h3ealthy massive vaccination campaign (swine flu), but people assume that euthanasia is not also part of the big bussines prima facie? I have more questions if you do not mind. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You can not trust people for the full 100% on all times. But it is also true that you can not distrust people for the full 100% all the time. There are many shades of grey between white and black. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact, you can only hope that all systems work. But in the real world it proofs time and time again that standards fall, control mechanisms faul and excesses occur. I have no idea to prevent that. The only thing is that you can try to prevent it. But it will never score 100% success.

You can just she the series on Discovery Channel and under titles as "Destroyed in seconds", "Crash investigation" and so on. Almost every investigation show the human component as part of the disaster, due to ignoring rules and procedures, wrong expectations, errors of plain stupidity.

You can not escape Murphy's law... Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The point is: it has not to do with "trust in people as such", but it has to do with the fact that people actions are world wide conditioned and ruled by economic interests which exceed the particular intentions or desires. do you think that people goes to be killed in each war because they want to die or they like wars? or they go there to die because mainly they are forced by an overwehlmig concocmitant circumstances? people are mainly object of the economical logic. so that was my question: why euthanasia is to be assumed to be out of that economical and imperialistic and capitalistic logic ruling outthere? but remember thyat for one time I am not trying to argue with you, I am just sharing questions with you, questions that perhaps you have not question to yourself. Of course I am trying to put the topic here on certain basis. People speaks about objectivity but usually start from ceertain very subjective approachs, like the mentioned "trust" or "voluntarity", or "liberty" , and fails to ask first if we can start from such premises in this world (how to speak about freedom, liberty and coluntarity under this capitalistic system? just an example, a particular one: is indeed a fact that ill people does not decide if or how a therapy happens, whatever people thinks about consented inform does not change the fact that therapy is ruled not by the ill people but for the doctors, based on their paticular point of view about illness, about the circumstances, people does not decide objetively but just based solely on the doctors hypothesis. why should we think that euthanasis is different, that is not a guided and doctor's dependant "decision"? and now let return to my genrrl or universal questions: is not the doctor logic indeed also guided by gerneral and economic grounds behid? And again remember, it would be easy to answer: no!! how can you thing that sort of things, but try to question be it hipoteticaly if that is not the real world. Past should illuminate the preseent and the present should illuminate the past: perhpahs nazi doctor were not so different than current doctors just so obedients and guided mainly by their particualr career interests while thinking about themselves to be just "good" people. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. A lot of people do things because "it feels good" or "seems the right thing to do". How they come to that decision, I do not know. In one of the books of Robert Leckie, he tried to answer the question why he joined the US Marines in WW2. He couldn't answer the question. And still he risked his life on Guadalcanal, New Britain and Peleliu... In general I can not answer your question, but I think I have a more positive and hopefull attitude to the world and the people on it. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

But you applies different standars to the nazis and to the current people. Nazis were not less evil than us. People were people and are still people at any rate. And I don't really understood what you meant for "positive and hopefull attitude" after you cited the tale of that guy who went prisoner of war. I think that war is people killing people and being killed by people, and that is not a positive thing, that is destruction. but i am not blaming people but the current relations between people, the current circumstances, the current manners, the current way of life, but not the life itself. I also strongly believe in people, I believe people does not really want to kill neither to be killed. People really wants and deserve to understand why and how are people been involved in wars since centuries. I really believe in the possibilities of people to understand the mechanisms that lead people to kill. really believe tha people can find a way to stop those mechanisms. Although those mechanism are very well stablished even inside of every mind, inside of every body. but I truly believe that people are able and deserves to understand how it comes to "feel good" by killing and to stop that sort of instincts (impulses). But I am not asking questions to you, just take a time to think over my questions, you do not have to rush to answer, as I am not demanding answers from you. For me it is better to stay questioning. This world deserves a big question mark, don't you think so? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 22:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

My proposal

My apologies for not replying on the ANI thread. I missed your question, and enough hours have passed that I'm replying here so that the bloated thread can quietly go to archive now that things are winding down. I never make any fixed determination of who should take the topic ban, but being blocked for edit warring in relationship to this event would be a criterion. As memory serves (and I did not go back to look), it would have applied to you, but my broad wording would have applied to anyone who jumped in after I posted, but prior to resolution. If my recommendation had been followed, as unlikely as it might have been, the goal would have been to give people some time to find some perspective. The goal of actions is not punishment, but protecting the project of building an encyclopedia. I've seen your edits and, in general, I've seen you to be a principled editor. Even principled editors can be derailed by disruptive editors. Whether or not my recommendation applied to you, keep up the good work.Novangelis (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

With the return of Jabbsworth I suddenly found myself as "man in the middle" between Jabbsworth and ClaudioSantos. Not a position to envy. That I referred to myself as potential ban-receiver is that both warriors seem unhappy with my actions. I want peace restored, as anybody else. If that involves a lockdown of euthanasia-related articles, voluntary or not, so be it. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I certainly do not envy the position you were in. You did admirably under repeated provocation from two sides, but you may have gone too far. I think your revoked barnstar was most telling moment of the exchanges—"NPOV so long as you agree with me". In my opinion, a lockdown is inferior to a period where editors who have not crossed one of the few absolutely demarcated lines on Wikipedia, the three-revert rule, are able to edit. I thought about suggesting a one-revert rule for some of the articles, but have not seen it in action enough to know that it would have been useful. Even if you had received a temporary topic ban, you could use it an a chance to step back and look at the articles with a fresh viewpoint, or you could seethe for the whole time and plan an attack for the moment you could act. I suspect you would have chosen the first option.Novangelis (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I came across a one-revert rule in a topic related to the IRA. A very blunt adminitrator threatened to block me without telling why. In effect, to my opinion, the guy was holding the article almost as a hostage. Not a trick I appreciate and I took a runner in that field. Protecting a battlefield subject is one thing, but scaring unaware people away goed too far. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Ignastion Fluberion Mondostitch

You're welcome. =) CycloneGU (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You got me completely flabbergasted with the title, but I am happy with the return. Thanks a lot! Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Heehee, I could see your face reading the e-mail alert. "What the heck does Ignastion Fluberion Mondostitch mean?" =D CycloneGU (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Your tendentious behavior

You obviously are unfamiliar with how things are handled at WP. You seek confrontation everywhere. You cite vandalism for failure to include wikilinks, and other gross inept statements. You flag in a drive-by manner; and nominate valid articles for deletion. If it continues, you'll get banned or permanently blocked. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If I am correct, you do not agree with my nomination of Mohammadabad, Iran? Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August Gebert, you expressed your opinion that "WP:Before is not mandatory". Rather than being a given, this is a highly contentious assertion, and as you have clearly been running into trouble through nominating notable topics for deletion, I urge you to consider it to be at least strongly encouraged, especially item 4, "Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist". This need consist of no more than quick spot checks of Google Books, News, and Scholar as far as I'm concerned; 30 seconds per potential nomination (to save numerous other editors minutes or hours) usually suffices. However, if a persistent pattern of blatantly and unmistakably ignoring WP:BEFORE continues even after receiving advice like this, I personally would support interpretation of that behavior as disruption and the institution of measures such as blocks and topic bans from AfD to prevent its continuance. Please take this under advisement and consider exercising greater caution and cooperation with consensus in the future. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion an article should proof by its content that it is noteworthy. Because the new pages that I check are already about a month old, the original authors have had enough time to bring in content to proof that. Sometimes it is better to have no article about a subject then a real bad one. That is my personal opinion, and I will stick to that. Night of the Big Wind _talk 04:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

And I believe in the Five Pillars and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. I follow the the road less traveled, because it renders better results for the encyclopedia, then the rules from WP:BEFORE. I do not believe in having is much articles as possible, but I believe in quality. And that means that bad articles have to be improved before they are worthy to keep. Night of the Big Wind _talk 05:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me quote myself in the discussion linked above as to why that's unacceptable. "To put it in the clearest possible terms, every time you make an AfD nomination that results in a keep because of references that were easily found, you have imposed needless busywork on other volunteers that achieves nothing more than to keep you from damaging the encyclopedia with your laziness. Doing so as an occasional accident is just the cost of human effort. Doing so as a matter of course is inappropriate." Again, I urge you to reconsider this behavior. —chaos5023 (talk) 12:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I just expect the original author to do his/her job properly. Why should other people do his/her work? I propose another nomination category, something that an article can be deleted when not improved within a specified timeframe. Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's basically where you're wrong. Wikipedia is a volunteer service, and none of us have supervisory authority over one another, nor should the threat of content destruction be used to arrogate the ability to extract labor from other volunteers to oneself. The appropriate response to a job not being done well enough is to fix it, not to coerce other people into fixing it. —chaos5023 (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, so when an original author makes a lousy job of an article and expects other people to fix it, it is okay. But if somebody else points out that the article in below the quality standards and needs fixing, it is wrong? Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

An original author doing what you consider a "lousy job" may just be them making a positive contribution to the best of their ability and interest, and they may have no expectations of other editors whatsoever. Pointing out that the article is of poor quality is anyone's right, as is improving it. That is not what an AfD nomination is; an AfD nomination is a proposal that the content be destroyed. Consensus exists in the community that some reasonable steps should be taken before doing that, and also that deletion is not cleanup. —chaos5023 (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

To my opinion, the rules are hopelessly inconsequent. In the best interest of Wikipedia I can not and I will not fully adhere to them. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

So for the record, you're comfortable announcing a commitment to using unresearched AfD nominations to extract article-improvement labor from other volunteers under threat of content destruction? —chaos5023 (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I announce that the rules are faulty and inconsequent. They promote substandard articles over quality and put the improvement burden upon the wrong people. Leaving substandard articles in Wikipedia, tagged or non-tagged, will ultimately undermine the trustworthyness of Wikipedia and Wikipedia itself. We built and maintain an encyclopedia and not a collection of articles. Quality is essential for Wikipedia, not loads of articles. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Secondly, you should look at my track record.

Thirdly, an nomination for deletion sets up a discussion about the proposal for deletion. It is not a demand.

What you want is killing off discussion and killing off different views. In a system of co-operation, different viewpoints should be respected. No rule of Wikipedia is carved in stone and they should always be open for discussion.

Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks, especially ones that make grossly offensive and inaccurate statements about my motivations. Are you seriously proposing that for you to spend 30 seconds before an AfD nomination checking Google Books, News and Scholar for the existence of independent reliable source coverage amounts to killing off discussion and killing off different views? —chaos5023 (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Listing to your viewpoints, you think an article like SJK (Tamil) Bandar Mentakab is worth keeping in its current form? Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea whatsoever, because I have not researched whether it has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The article's prettiness or lack thereof is nothing to do with whether we should have an article on the topic. What you don't appear to be getting is that "notability" is the standard the project called Wikipedia has defined for itself as to what topics it should have articles on. By just deciding for yourself that the standard should be whether an article is well-written and well-organized and well-cited enough to meet with your personal approval, you are not acting for the good of Wikipedia, you are acting for the good of some other project, NightOfTheBigWindPedia, because you are not participating in the scope of this project. Wikipedia's licensing terms for its content guarantee that you have the right to fork if you want to participate in a project that resembles Wikipedia in some way but has a different scope that you define, but Wikipedia already has a scope. And even so, consensus can change and you're welcome to try to form consensus that Wikipedia's scope should be more like the scope of NightOfTheBigWindPedia, but you're not welcome to ignore consensus. That way lies nothing you will enjoy. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Too bad you think rules are more important then the well being of Wikipedia. Sad. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, what part of no personal attacks and assume good faith was unclear? You have no idea what I think, so kindly refrain from commenting on the topic. You might also want to ask yourself whether somebody whose bleedin' username starts with the word "chaos" is more likely to be a mindless rule-follower who Just Doesn't Get That All You're Trying To Do Is Save Wikipedia, or a real live human being who disagrees with you about what's actually good for Wikipedia. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Blahblahblah. Discussion closed. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

• News and notes: Wikimania; why Board of Trustees elections attract few votes; brief news

• In the news: Consensus of Wikipedia authors questioned about Shakespeare authorship; 10 biggest edit wars on Wikipedia; brief news

• Research interview: The Huggle Experiment: interview with the research team

• WikiProject report: Little Project, Big Heart — WikiProject Croatia

• Featured content: Featured pictures is back in town

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision submitted for one case

• Technology report: Developers descend on Haifa; wikitech-l discussions; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"Looped" redirect at 16th Division

Thanks for expanding on your nomination rationale at Rfd. However, please note that there is absolutely no point in adding the redirect 16th Infantry Division (United States) to 16th Division while the former still points to the latter; indeed, such an inclusion may confuse readers of that disambiguation page, and I'm sure this is something we both wish to avoid.

Moreover, there is no need to call me "Nameless". "Sir" will do just fine.

Regards, 88.104.47.107 (talk) 06:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It would be better if you registered and choose your own name. Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

How so? --88.104.47.107 (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Because I have the idea that your are a human being and not a number. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

• Wikimania: Seventh annual Wikimedia conference concluded in Haifa, Israel

• News and notes: Wikimania a success; board letter controversial; and evidence showing bitten newbies don't stay

• In the news: Israeli news focuses on Wikimania; worldwide coverage of contributor decline and gender gap; brief news

• WikiProject report: Shooting the breeze with WikiProject Firearms

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Manipulation of BLPs case opened; one case comes to a close

• Technology report: Wikimania technology roundup; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Bryan Edward Smith

Hello Night of the Big Wind. I am just letting you know that I deleted Bryan Edward Smith, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you.   -- Lear's Fool 11:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As long as the article is removed, I am happy. In fact, something went wronf with tagging the CSD. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Hello! I hope you enjoy this yummy treat as a friendly greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 21:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Exit International

Am I wrong to think there is an irony between your userpage saying we don't censor, but this diff of yours with its resulting discussion? Jesanj (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Still I am not censoring. I do a proposal for removing, I am not removing it without any discussion because the item is inconvenient. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Censorship can occur here only when removals are undiscussed? That's not my reading of WP:CENSOR which says "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article". A group of editors could all discuss and agree, "hey this is offensive" and remove the material—yet still censor. Jesanj (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:CENSOR: Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's main servers are hosted, will also be removed.

Quite often, censorship is described as a hidden mechanism to control unwanted news/pictures and so on without any outside control. In this case, my removal proposal is nor hidden nor necessarily succesful. There is a real chance that the community decides to keep the picture, so there is influence from others that can thwart my proposal. Having a choice is incompatible with censorship... Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you when you say "having a choice is incompatible with censorship" as you can see from my example above. Also, your statement implies self-censorship is never the choice of the person. I'm sure you can think up a counterexample. Jesanj (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed over here you said it was provocative against me. Don't you think that's a common argument in support of censorship? Jesanj (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Cveticanin

Mister ..Night of the Big Wind..

My name is Nebojsa Cveticanin,greatgreatson of Emanuel Cveticanin the article which you want to be deleted. I am not in good health .I wright as hard as i can.What is the hurry? I made article on cyrilic Serbian also and it is okk.You have no understanding.You said that my Emanuel was hauptmann than major than .... In one article he was a captain and later like other oficiers he made progress and became major and on the end he was fieldmarshalleutenant.Why is that problem? Can you help me instead of deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebojsa Cveticanin (talk • contribs) 16:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The main problem is that most of the sources you have added do not give any information about Emanuel Cveticanin. I have been looking at Google for information, but could not find any source naming him a fieldmarshall. Are you sure he was a fieldmarshall (the highest possible rank)? Or do you mean Lieutenant General (Генерал-потпуковник)? Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Billboard placement

FYI I asked for a third opinion at NPOVN.[4] Jesanj (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

16th Division (World War I)

Hi Night of the Big Wind. Please do not create division articles with non-standard suffixes. This runs across the standard WP:MILHIST suffix policy which is to use only national disambiguators. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the United States had two 16th Divisions during World War I. The first was in 1917 renamed to the 37th division. The second one remained the 16th until it was dissolved in 1919... Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well aware, just removed my previous comments. But we can't be US-centric here; that's systematic bias. We don't have the Belgian, Austrio-Hungarian, Dutch, Turkish, random South American countries etc divisions from World War I yet. Luckily, 16th Division (United States) is available, and I've moved the article there. Would welcome your thoughts. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind name changes, as long as it helps the users of Wikipedia. How is the case 16th/37th now solved? Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You'll see that I carefully added data on the 16/37 to the initial section of the 37th Infantry Division (United States), in accordance with WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME - basically which says the unit or formation should be at the latest name used. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Cautiously I recommend the articles George Kitching, Arthur Edward Potts, J.D.B. Smith and William Smith Ziegler (all Canadian WW2 generals), Military War Cemetery Grebbeberg and Willem Pieter Landzaat for a check on the naming conventions. I guess it is the best way to serve the public. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

TimHarper068

Thanks for the info. I concur with the findings of the SPI. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

• Women and Wikipedia: New Research, WikiChix

• News and notes: Chapter funding and what skeptics and Latter Day Saints have in common

• In the news: Wikipedia a "sausage fest", Chicago Wikipedians ("the people you've probably plagiarized"), and other silly season stories

• WikiProject report: The Oregonians

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Abortion case opened, two more still in progress

• Technology report: Forks, upload slowness and mobile redirection

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hoppenhof

Hey, I made that redirect five years ago, I honestly can't remember. Pretty sure it is the town's historical German name, which is relevant because German was very influential language for centuries and many places are known in other languages by their German names. Most articles on Latvian towns have that information in infobox maybe it was deleted when templates were changed you can check article history to make sure. ~~Xil (talk) 05:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that is not unexpected. I made it a bit more visible in the article, because it got lost in the infobox. I changed the redirect in a disambiguation page so it still directs to Ape, Latvia but now also to my soon to write article about Hoppenhof (restaurant), a Michelin starred restaurant in the Netherlands. Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Fergus Moore for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fergus Moore is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fergus Moore until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Bgwhite (talk) 06:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Myrtle Allen

I do not exactly understand why you reverted all my changes wholesale to return to an inferior prior version. Your refusal to explain your reverts of my edits, and the fact that English is not your first language cause me to question your judgment. Therefore I will be restoring some if not all my edits. If you have valid cause to revert edits then explain them on the talk page. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

As the original author of this article, I know quite well what I am doing. I consider your attack on my language as an PA. I revert all the edits, because you damaged it. For instance the references. I used a number of websites as source so removing them from the references to external links is not the brightest idea. Especially, when you start asking for a source, while you have just removed them... Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have valid reasons to change the article? And did you read my last version? I doubt it, because as you had read this, you would have know that I added quite a few for your changes. It was easier to remove everything first and add later, then repair. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

RESPONSES:

a) I did not delete any references as per this diff. Some of the sentences were moved around and the refs moved accordingly.

b) This diff shows that you did not add "quite a few for your changes". That sentence, by the way, is grammatically incorrect (should be: "quite a few of your changes"), as is "I revert all the edits, because you damaged it" (should be: "I reverted all your edits because you damaged it", whatever "damaged" means). I had to make several grammar and syntax corrections in the article, presumably because Dutch, not English, is your first language. This is not an insult or a personal attack, it is an empirical fact, confirmed at your own talk page wherein you indicate your nationality.

c) Tim Allen, her son, was very enthousiastic. [sic] He expected to get all kinds of new things on the table and was deeply disappointed when he got the same food that he was eating al his life. He did not realize at the time that the food he got all his life was special and that his mother was to become the leading lady of modern-day Irish cooking. -- NOTE: This is bathos-ridden CRUFT, whether it is sourced or unsourced.

d) Do you have valid reasons to change the article? And did you read my last version? -- ANSWER: Yes. I have been editing Wikipedia since 2005 and I know that my version is superior to the one which existed before I fixed it. Had you examined the changes I made, rather than deleting them summarily, perhaps out of a misguided sense of article ownership, you might have noticed the way they improved the article. And yes I read your last version, which was not noticeably different from your previous version, which I tried to improve.

Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is the diff about the changes between the original article and the version after my revert and additional editing. Most of the changes are from your hand, were removed by the revert and added again.

Your hammering on my language is another PA. And this version of your userpage is also interesting: [5] A three year ban??? You ask for respect on your userpage, show also some respect to other users. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You ask for respect on your userpage, show also some respect to other users.

---

Actually, asking that my userpage not be vandalized is a formality. As far as I know I do treat other editors with respect, although I have had a few scrapes along the way

As far as my ban (not three years, but 28 months, if you had bothered to count), that is:

a) none of your business

b) evidence that you are a vicious individual

c) proof that you have no intention of addressing the execrable state of the current Myrtle Allen article due to your poor editing, and are simply looking for distractions Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

← So, I took a look at the edits that RMS made that you reverted and, frankly, I think you should reconsider. The original, and the one you reverted to, had a number of typographic errors as well as serious legibility issues. Robert did a reasonable job in cleaning it up, IMO. Where you say, "As the original author of this article", please understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and 'ownership' of articles is strongly discouraged. RMS makes valid points re. the language used; please take these constructively. It's not a reflection upon yourself, more upon the article. Please just accept that others will change your edits. Every time you edit an article, MediaWiki reminds you of this on the edit page. As to Robert's ban - that's now ancient history and has been resolved by the community long ago (and I say that as an admin who was active in both banning and unbanning him). Bringing it up here now is just being mean :/ - Alison ^❤ 02:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC) (PS: I've met Myrtle in person, as well as her daughter-in-law and they're both wonderful people :) )

I did take a look at your changes. Too bad you have kicked Tim Allen. I added another reference for the six children. It is stated on the Ballymaloe website, a website that I used as source but was kick to external links by RMS (after which he asked for a source). It was far more his abusive behaviour that sent me beserk... Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

About ownership of an article. I know that I do not own them, but I still feel that I have a special responsibility to the article. I want to safeguard their growth, not drop it to the orphanage. If I see a proper edit, no sweat. But I take a second and third look at a bad edit and look if I can improve it. I could improve RMS edits, but had to revert first before I could. So I removed all and then readded the usesful (in my eyes) things. By then RMS was already exploded. And his comment that English is not your first language cause me to question your judgment made me explode. Yes, I am Dutch but I live in Ireland for the last five years. I know perfectly well what I write and I am not a newbie on Wikipedia (started almost 6 year ago on the Dutch WP). Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

So, having read my talk page you are aware that I was going to notify you not to leave any further messages on my talk page. This is a reminder of that, effective immediately. I am uninterested in your having a good night's sleep, or any other details about your personal life. The raising of the issue of my ban by an junior editor such as yourself is beyond the pale. Any further problems you can take to WP:ANI. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I you like to behave like a toddler that is refused a sweety, go on with that. Stay out of my way, and no problem will occur between us. And yes, I know the way to WP:ANI. Stay civil and be happy! Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Crubeen updates

if there is a dispute about data I entered , I prefer to remove the disputed terms altogether. Even while I am no longer the owner of data I entered. I wish to point out I have made no mention of any dislike of any political terms, I only want to reach common agreeable ground, acceptable to all

John6547 (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

That is not the way Wikipedia works, my friend. Facts, based on sources, rule here. Not opinions. On Wikipedia, Northern Ireland is not an disputed term but a clear fact. If we like it or not. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

thank you for your kind words, but the fact is this band and its recordings has its origins in the Republic of Ireland, I wish to correct the error to avoid confusion and clarify, am I not allowed to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John6547 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

In the present version it is clear that the band is from Newry, but that they worked in Dublin. Add a source, and everybody is happy. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

thank you for you understanding, the source is that the group had its origin in the Republic of Ireland because it had to record under their own label Clanrye Records, registered in Dublin and EMI (Ireland) CBS (Ireland). I don't wish to go down the road why, but it was a sad fact of that time. It would be misleading to say it had its origin in the UK. As they where not entertained. if you know what I mean.

While thank God nowadays times now have moved on, but at that time, the 1970's the music group had no other option but to have their origin in Dublin, in the Republic of Ireland. otherwise they would never have made an LP in their own birthplace.

To reach a common ground acceptable ground to all , I suggest its better I edit my post to say their recording origins rather than their birthplace. therefore I suggest we use Dublin, Ireland as origin, as this was infact their origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John6547 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

No, you can't do that. The origin of the band is still Newry. That the origin of their recordings is Dublin, does not change the fact that the musicians are from Newry. Better leave it as it is. You are already warned for edit warring and another change will get you blocked. That is not part of the plan. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

the troubles were far away from my bed in that time. I was just a kid in that time and my move from The Netherlands to the Republic of Ireland was only many, many years later. I still try to understand why this all happened, and fail. Maybe because I fail to understand religious intolerance and fail to understand the Loyalist movement. I can understand the resistance movement, but not the call to arms. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

• News and notes: Girl Geeks edit while they dine, candidates needed for forthcoming steward elections, image referendum opens

• In the news: Journalist regrets not checking citation, PR firms issue advice on how to "survive" Wikipedia (but U.S. Congressman caught red-handed)

• WikiProject report: Images in Motion – WikiProject Animation

• Featured content: JJ Harrison on avian photography

• Arbitration report: After eleven moves, name for islands now under arbitration

• Technology report: Engineering report, sprint, and more testers needed

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

RE: Speedy deletion of Sichuan Resturant

Hello there! There are a couple of things that apply here, first, under the criteria for speedy deletion, your one sentence article clearly qualifies as a lack of content. All new pages once put into the article space can (and often are) immediately subject to review based on these criteria. WP:BEFORE (to my understanding) only applies to pages undergoing the AfD process, which already have some sort of insignificant content on them. That being said, I see you have a lot of good work and I don't doubt that you were meaning to make an awesome article. I would like to point out that as WP:Starting an article recommends, it might be more prudent to get some substantial content in a draft page first under your namespace, rather than create one sentence articles. I hope this clears things up! Cheers. Sasquatch t|c 22:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I admit it was a fake article. But according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an article for deletion is was an absolutely valid article. Just look at point D. So there are two points: WP:BEFORE is incorrect, or the criteria for speedy deletion are incorrect. To my opinion it is WP:BEFORE. It approves sloppy articles because, like others state it, an article should not be destroyed as it might be notable. Horrible! This was a clear case of WP:POINT and I thank you for supporting my stance! Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC) See User:Night of the Big Wind/Workpage12 for the real article.

Box office

Dag, Night of the Big Wind. Alles goed daar aan de overkant?

Misschien wel een amusante voor jou: mijn nominatie van nl:Box office op deze verwijderlijst. Soms kan ik me zó opwinden...

Take care. ErikvanB (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hoe betrouwbaar is een bron die andere bronnen uitplunderd?? De bron answers.com alleen al maakt het artikel onbetrouwbaar. En volgens mij heet een succesvolle film in het Nederlands een nl:kaskraker.

Hier op enwp bevalt het mij een stuk beter. Mijn geschreven Engels gaat ineens met sprongen vooruit. Er zit hier ook wel een lading gekken en idioten, maar die hebben hier toch minder invloed dan op nlwp. Met name omdat ze hier geen rugdekking hebben van moderatoren...

Qua systeem zijn ze weliswaar ernstig bureaucratisch en vervallen tot jargon, maar dat valt te overleven. Ik moest heel erg wennen aan het veel grotere gebruik van bronnen. En nu, enige maanden verder, vind ik dat meer een tekortkoming van nlwp dan een hinderpaal voor enwp.

Ik heb tamelijk recent nog even rondgekeken op nlwp. Dat was goed genoeg om mij te genezen van enige behoefte om terug te willen keren. RJB/Sir Statler/KoosG hangen nog steeds de belangrijke jongen uit. Robotje heeft nog steeds een leuter die achter elke punt en komma aangaat, de rechtbank hanteert nog steeds geheim bewijs en Wikix en vriendjes/vijanden klieren nog vrolijk door. Neuh, ik blijf lekker zitten waar ik zit. Ik ben hier aanzienlijk productiever dan op nlwp. Waar ik jaren nodig had om aan 100 artikelen te komen op nlwp, ben ik op enwp sinds april van 2 naar 78 artikelen gegaan. Nummer 100 komt misschien dit jaar nog

En privé, och. Ik ben nu ruim een jaar mijn baan kwijt en de sociale dienst betaald belabberd. Maar mijn gezondheid is sterk verbeterd en begin september begin ik aan een elf-weekse cursus. Ik ga geloof ik voor het eerst sinds 1992 weer serieus (= full time) de schoolbanken in.daar zie ik toch een beetje tegenop...

Waai gerust eens vaker binnen! Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Dankjewel voor het laatste! Kaskraker is inderdaad ook een hele goeie. Die was me even ontschoten.

Tja, ik vind het eigenlijk wel jammer dat je er niet meer bent, want ik las jouw bijdragen graag en je wist ook fraaie staaltjes van hopeloze vertalingen uit het Engels op te sporen (zoals die van Renegade). Maar je moet wel bedenken dat ik door mijn anglofiele neigingen tamelijk bevooroordeeld ben, hoor! Gelukkig heb ik niet helemaal gevolgd waar al die conflicten over gingen die tot jouw vertrek hebben geleid, maar ik heb zelf op geen enkele manier ooit last van je gehad. Ik denk dat veel conflicten ontstaan doordat sommige mensen niet in staat zijn om op een vriendelijke manier te communiceren. Ego's spelen daarbij ongetwijfeld een rol. Ik volg al het gedoe niet zo, maar als ik de regblok-pagina bezoek, dan lijkt het wel eens of sommige gebruikers er een hobby van hebben gemaakt elkaar te laten blokkeren.

Ik ben het trouwens met je eens dat op enwp veel meer bronnen worden gebruikt. Dat is mij ook opgevallen. Op de Nederlandse wiki worden bronloze artikelen wel erg makkelijk geaccepteerd, vind ik soms. Of er staat één nietszeggend bronnetje bij. Dan kan het zomaar gebeuren dat iemand een onzinverhaal heeft opgeschreven dat door iedereen wordt geloofd en geslikt.

Goed dat je een cursus bent gaan doen. Veel succes daarmee! De recente winkelplunderingen in Engeland hebben County Clare nog niet bereikt, hoop ik?

Mvg, ErikvanB (talk) 03:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Klein detail: men hing in Engeland de beest uit, ik woon in Ierland. Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Weet ik, maar het is maar een klein stukje zwemmen. ErikvanB (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

County navboxes

Hi could you please explain the edits you made to the Northern Ireland county navboxes, specifically this: ''[[List of towns and villages in Northern Ireland|Towns]]<!--Only for places with their own official town council -->''.

The definition of a town in Northern Ireland has nothing to do with town councils, it is defined by the Northern Ireland Neighbourhood Information Service (NINIS), which specifics what a settlement is based on its population. This edit, whilst good faith, is very wrong and should be reverted. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I will fix that. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

• News and notes: Abuse filter on all Wikimedia sites; Foundation's report for July; editor survey results

• In the news: Wikipedia praised for disaster news coverage, scolded for left-wing bias; brief news

• Recent research: Article promotion by collaboration; deleted revisions; Wikipedia's use of open access; readers unimpressed by FAs; swine flu anxiety

• Opinion essay: How an attempt to answer one question turned into a quagmire

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Tennis

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Four existing cases

• Technology report: The bugosphere, new mobile site and MediaWiki 1.18 close in on deployment

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Éamonn O'Doherty (sculptor)

The edit the way i did it conformed to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_of_birth_and_death, and whilst it is hard to get all articles to conform to the standard, the edit was done the proper way as oppossed to the "wrong way". In fact "(Derry, Northern Ireland 1939 - Dublin, Ireland, 4 August 2011)" is the wrong way as the location when it is given regardless of the linked too guideline is usually placed after the date. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It also added a little extra substance to the article as the way the birth-death bracketed bit looks is too way overloaded especially for the little content of the article. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added some body to the article. It was more or less a forgotten article from my hand. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Work away, i just wanted to improve the readability and presentation of it. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Exercising caution with requests for speedy deletions

Hi! I just logged in and received this message about the Speedy deletion nomination of K C Surendra Babu, a page I created less than 24 hours ago. I found that the page was already deleted. Speedy deletion is a tool of Internet censorship that allows for the deletion of articles without discussion and is used to remove pages that are so obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia that they have no chance of surviving a deletion discussion. As you know, a lot of energy and effort goes into creating each and every article on Wikipedia. I think it would be polite if you could share the arguments you used to mark the article for speedy deletion with me. In my opinion, the article was important, as it dealt with a police chief who was brutally murdered in the line of his duty. It created a hue and cry in the state of Bihar, India; and was one of the main reasons for the 15 year rule of Lalu Yadav led RJD to give way to the JDU+BJP combine led by Nitish Kumar in the elections, barely a month after the murder. However, before I could respond to the notice of deletion, the article was deleted. Would an article on the head of the police force in your country, who was brutally murdered while performing his duty, be important enough to be included in an encyclopedia? Thank you. --Tinpisa (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It is your responsibility to add enough information that shows the notability of the article, not mine. The article failed completely on that, to my opinion and to the opinion of the administrator who judged the request and performed the removal. If you name that censorship, something is seriously wrong with your opinion about WP:POV and how Wikipedia works. If you want to built an article more or less "in private" I suggest you use workpages in your own workspace, similar like User:Night of the Big Wind/Workpage8. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt reply. Sorry, if I even seemed to question your judgement on marking an article for deletion. I had no such intention. The sentence about speedy deletion which I wrote was taken verbatim from the the article on Internet censorship on wikipedia; and is also mentioned in WP:DP#Speedy Deletion; it is neither my opinion nor have I authored it. I feel I try to follow all the three fundamantal principles of wikipedia including WP:POV, both in letter and spirit. Perhaps I just need to create better pages, so that in future, they are not deleted within minutes of their creation. Thanks. --Tinpisa (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a good idea to think before you speak. Especially with a comment as "censorship"! I am an editor since januari 2006, to hear such a big accusation of somebody who is only ten days an editor, would get most people angry. But getting angry is not in the best interest of Wikipedia, that is why I gave you the advice about the workpages. And make sure that your articles are neutral. People are very tough on unreferenced articles about people. I hope you will take this as a learning point... Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Carmel Market bombing

Please explain in the talk page of this article why the article does not meet the general notability guideline. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

HUMMERSTATUS

Please tell me what I have to do to keep this article, which is about a real person who has worked with major artists. Thank you. Orchestra2001 (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

breaking the editing ristriction

You should be aware that all articles related to the israeli-palestinian conflict are subject to a 1 revert per day limit as a result of an arbitration decision. Yoiu broke that restriction by reverting twice on Hadera Market bombing. You need to undo your last revertr, or risk being blocked. Anguished56 (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. I did not know that. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Issuing warnings

I am curious - Why did you issue a warning to an IP edit that I reverted? Denisarona (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

To make sure he stopped with his rants. And you were just a bit quicker with reverting. :-) Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks - I prefer to issue my own warnings. Denisarona (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem when you remove my second warning and replace it with yours. Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:POINT

Hi Night of the Big Wing! I noticed that after nominating a series of terror attacks for deletion and being shown articles about US murders/shootings, you nominated them all for deletion. Please carefully review Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point before performing future moves like that. It looks like none of your nominations will succeed, so perhaps it's time to drop the issue. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I would almost think that I hit a sore nerve with my brutality to nominate them. Unfortunately, I still think they are not relevant, so I will not bent to the pressure. Certainly not for something that looks like an orchestrated campaign. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hoogar

Hello,

I've expanded the article and added some references. If you have time, could you take another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoogar. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism , such as the edit at Carmel Market bombing, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at Talk:2001 Netanya bombing.
Message added 22:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jayjg ^(talk) 22:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

• News and notes: 24,000 votes later and community position on image filter still unclear; first index of editor satisfaction appears positive

• In the news: Britannica and Wikipedia like "apples and chairs"; should anyone who's anyone get an article?; and why fighting and barriers to editing may be useful after all

• WikiProject report: Riding with WikiProject London Transport

• Sister projects: Wiki Loves Monuments 2011

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Opinion essay: The copyright crisis, and why we should care

• Arbitration report: BLP case closed; Cirt-Jayen466 nearly there; AUSC reshuffle

• Technology report: Pencils down in Google Summer of Code, August analysed and integrated HTTPS support in action

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Otto Neumann (Artist)

You placed several tags on the Neumann article with the following edit. Would you mind either fixing the issues when you find them or perhaps placing links to the allegedly plagiarized material on the article's talkpage? I have no idea which source the text was supposedly copied from or how much of an issue the close paraphrasing might be. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
For instance, the "{{close paraphrasing|date=September 2011}}" tag's text states:

This article or section contains close paraphrasing of one or more non-free copyrighted sources. Ideas in this article should be expressed in an original manner. See the talk page for details.

But the problem is that there are no details posted on the talk page. Shearonink (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, just started a new course so i forgot that. I have added the info to the talkpage of the article. Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the close paraphrasing was trivial, and some phrases identified by the software are not problematic at all. I've elaborated on the article's talk page, have rewritten a few phrases, and have Wikified the article. I've removed the tags. I suggest that you discuss any further concerns with the new editor in a constructive, helpful way. This is the editor's very first contribution to Wikipedia. It is a pretty good start, and we should be welcoming. Best regards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Maruti Suzuki

SPEEDY DELETION hello! i had started a new article on the corporate social responsibilities of Maruti Suzuki which has been nominated for speedy deletion because it relates to a music artist. however, this article is absolutely different and deals only with CSR. kindly remove the tag of speedy deletion. -- Saumya.T

Refused. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

• News and notes: Foundation reports on research, Kenya trip, Mumbai Wikiconference; Canada, Hungary and Estonia; English Wikinews forked

• In the news: 9/11 coverage, Wikimedia hypothetically rebranded and Wikipedia golf 2.0

• WikiProject report: Politics in the Pacific: WikiProject Australian Politics

• Featured content: Wikipedians explain two new featured pictures

• Arbitration report: Ohconfucius sanctions removed, Cirt desysopped 6:5 and a call for CU/OS applications

• Technology report: What is: agile development? and new mobile site goes live

• Opinion essay: The Walrus and the Carpenter

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of The Kaleidoscope Trust declined

Thanks for your recent New page patrolling. Just to let you know, I've declined the spam speedy deletion tag that you placed on The Kaleidoscope Trust because it was not unambiguous spam and definitely doesn't need a fundamental rewrite to become less "adverty". --Mrmatiko (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Peleliu

Hi, your fingers are quicker than mine (I was trying the same at the above). However, I notice another IP has since made substantial changes and I'm not qualified to decide if correct or not. Denisarona (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Plain vandalisme, a copy from a part of the American preparations. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

same here.Arman Cagle ^{(Contact me EMail Me Contribs)}

Please remember if you have any questions, please reply on my talk page. 20:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

So, while I was checking all the different versions of the Anoms to see which versions was the last non-vandalistic one, you guys were hammering the bad boys. Great teamwork! Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Manual of Style to indicate italics

Hi, just to elaborate a bit more clearly (coming from Avenue (disambiguation) and Avenue (magazine)), some titles should be formatted with italics to meet the Wikipedia Manual of Style. See MOS:ITALIC for more details. +mt 20:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

• From the editor: Changes to The Signpost

• News and notes: Ushahidi research tool announced, Citizendium five years on: success or failure?, and Wikimedia DC officially recognised

• In the news: Wikipedia: yesterday's news? Calls for women, doctors, and scholars of humanities; Wales makes Wikimedia work "look easy"

• Sister projects: On the Wikinews fork

• WikiProject report: Back to school

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: ArbCom narrowly rejects application to open new case

• Technology report: MediaWiki 1.18 deployment begins, the alleged "injustice" of WMF engineering policy, and Wikimedians warned of imminent fix to magic word

• Popular pages: Article stats for the English Wikipedia in the last year

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy nomination

Could you please tell me why you feel that this is not an assertion of notability? You tagged the article for speedy deletion.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

While I was editing the article has been moved to Sof Strait. But my question remains valid. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Have a career in "getting out of a straightjacket" since 10 months is not very convincing. Publishing on YouTube is, in my humble opinion, also not a way to gain notoriety. The sources you have added only point to local press coverage. Even Google gives just gives a small 1500 hits, most from her own website, Facebook, YouTube and Flickr. She is just not well known enough. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Getting out of a straightjacket is, I agree, not intrinsically notable. But gettinmg into the Guiness Book of World Records is a clear assertion of notability. Whether she should be there, and whether she is in fact notable, is not relevant; the popint is that a credible assertion is made. In CSD we are not assessing notability, we are recognising and evaluating assertion thereof. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:

• Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
• You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

Wifione ^Message 14:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I know: if in doubt, don't do it! Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea...

... to look at becoming an administrator? If yes, why? If no, even more why? Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Possibly. You have a reasonably number of edits & have been around for quite a while. The most important question to ask yourself is which of the admin tools do you feel that you need? My only previous interaction with you was related to your New page patrolling / Recent Change patrolling, it might be an idea to request some other user rights first such as rollback or (since you've created quite a few pages) autopatrolled. Being successfully granted other rights and then using them well shows that you can be trusted with the much more powerful tools used by administrators, though obviously only request tools that you actually need. --Mrmatiko (talk) 07:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Tried my luck and applied for rollback and autopatrol. Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on rollback. The scrutiny that your edits were under when you applied for rollback & autopatrolled is a small taster of what happens at Request for Adminship. If you still want to go for that (waiting at least a few months) then you must be prepared to answer some very difficult questions about previous edits. --Mrmatiko (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The dirty taste it gave me was enough to shelf the idea permanently. I thought that I did Wikipedia/NPP a favour by applying for autopatrol (that is the way it is presented on the page). I am not begging for it... Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011

• Opinion essay: The global mission, the image filter and the "German question"

• Recent research: Top female Wikipedians, reverted newbies, link spam, social influence on admin votes, Wikipedians' weekends, WikiSym previews

• News and notes: WMF strikes down enwiki consensus, academic journal partnerships, and eyebrows raised over minors editing porn-related content

• In the news: Sockpuppeting journalist recants, search dominance threatened, new novels replete with Wikipedia references

• WikiProject report: A project in overdrive: WikiProject Automobiles

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: "Broadly construed" explained, voting begins on Senkaku Islands case, invitation to comment on CU/OS candidates

• Technology report: 1.18 deployment on track, "mythical" Git migration scheduled, editor decline statistics improved

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Prinses Juliana

I just wanted to let you know that I tood a look at your recently created article Prinses Juliana-- The information is presented clearly and is easy to understand. However, I noticed there are some holes that may need filling: the article contains grammatical errors. Amy Z (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, English is not my first language and "sometimes" it shows. Unfortunately, my spellingschecker (Word) does not give me spelling or grammatical errors in the present version. So, please, be my teacher! Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Its not a problem at all, and I'd be glad to help. What jumped out at me was the sentence "The importance of the restaurant is not only found in the food that it produced, but also as trainings ground." The second clause there, "but also..." should not use the plural "trainings." Instead, it should be "as a training ground" or "as training grounds."

Also, the sentence would be better if written with parallel structure. There are a couple of ways to do this:

One would be: The importance of the restaurant is found not only in the food that it produced, but also in the chefs that it trained.

Another is : The restaurant is important not only because of the food it produced, but also because of the chefs that it trained.

Or, if you wanted to keep the “training ground” phrase: The restaurant was important because of the food it produced, and it was also valuable because it was a training ground for young chefs.

I also made a couple of minor changes to improve the flow of the article.

Amy Z (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This shows the shortcomings of the spellchecker. The extra "s" in "trainings" should not have been there. But after the rewrite, the sentence is much better. Night of the Big Wind _talk 05:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of De Bokkedoorns

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on De Bokkedoorns requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You have a strange sense of humour and absolutely no knowledge of restaurants. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

History of Indian football

Hello Night, Thank you for trying to show that my former page, History of Indian Football, should be kept. Sadly it was deleted. I just came here to tell you that there was no copyright nor close paraphrasing as this information was created before that Hard Tackle article was created. [6] and [7] will show you that this information was created before July 4th 2011 which was when that Hard Tackle article was made. --FootballinIndiaWiki (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

• News and notes: Italian Wikipedia shuts down over new privacy law; Wikimedia Sverige produce short Wikipedia films, Sue Gardner calls for empathy

• In the news: QRpedia launches to acclaim, Jimbo talks social media, Wikipedia attracts fungi, terriers and Greeks bearing gifts

• WikiProject report: Kia ora WikiProject New Zealand

• Featured content: Reviewers praise new featured topic: National treasures of Japan

• Arbitration report: Last call for comments on CheckUser and Oversight teams

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 09:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

• Opinion essay: The conservatism of Wikimedians

• News and notes: Largest ever donation to WMF, final findings of editor survey released, 'Terms of use' heavily revised

• In the news: Uproar over Italian shutdown, the varying reception of BLP mischief, and Wikipedia's doctor-evangelist

• WikiProject report: The World's Oldest People

• Featured content: The weird and the disgusting

• Arbitration report: Senkaku Islands closes; administrators authorized to place articles on discretionary sanctions

• Technology report: 1.18 deployment and HTTPS switchover completed, but developer help now needed with new projects

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Jenn Mierau

Hello Night of the Big Wind. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jenn Mierau, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Sources indicate importance sufficient for A7. Take to AfD if required. Thank you. GedUK  20:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Lal Tip

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Lal Tip, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.avi-series.com/Lal.Tip.html. As a copyright violation, Lal Tip appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Lal Tip has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Lal Tip and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Lal Tip with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Lal Tip.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Avibd (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC) Hello Thanks for your attention. Lal Tip page is now improved and have no copyrighted text. so i wish you will remove the speedy deletion template. --Avibd (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It was plain the same text as before, so I have added the CSD again. 08:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Disambiguator's Barnstar
		The Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who are prolific disambiguators. For clearing out the templates with disambig links, a feat the rest of us assumed would never get done. JaGatalk 15:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, it never even occurred to me to try to get the list down the way you've done. Thanks! --JaGa^talk 15:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not always negative to be stubborn Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Uterus-like mass speedy nomination

Could you please explain which criterion you thought the page fell foul of? If it is copyvio, I'm afraid I've missed it – could you direct me to the source? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 01:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I could not find the copyvio so quickly, but what gave me the impression was the book style referencing. Most clear is that in the last sentence above the sources. "A magnetic resonance account of this lesion type has been provided by Menn et al." Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Moira gunn

Hello. You left me a message warning me about creating copyright infringement. It's always a good idea to check the edit history when doing this kind of patrol. Unfortunately you can't see the details now it has been deleted because you are not an administrator, but if you'd checked you would have seen that all all I did was to create a redirect to an article with correct capitalization, and this redirect page was then replaced by the infringing material about 4 years later. Speedy Deletion wasn't required... just a revert to the non-infringing version. Unfortunately the administrator who deleted didn't check either. Like I said, it is a good idea to check in part because implying that an editor created a copyvio is a fairly serious allegation, and in this case was quite wrong. I am know it was a mistake on your part, so don't worry; just be sure to check in future --Slp1 (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

There were four articles (no redirects) on Moira Gunn. All contained the same copyvio: Technation. Sorry. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure from what you say that you are understanding the point. Just to clarify, Moira Gunn and Moira gunn may have contained a copyvio when you saw them, but they were created in 2007, one as an article and one as a redirect. The articles were fine for four years, until the copyvio material was added in October 2011. As there was non-copyvio version for them to be reverted for, they were not eligibible for speedy deletion. See G12 on WP:CSD. Also, you informed the wrong people, me and User:Dweinberger, rather than the person who was actually adding the copyvios. I've removed the templates from Dweinberger's talk page. In contrast Tech Nation with Dr. Moira Gunn and Technation were new articles that had no good version to revert to, so these were fine to speedy. As the speedy instructions say, you should always check the history of any article you are thinking of nominating for a speedy, to make sure that whatever you see isn't a more recent problem that can be fixed with a revert. --Slp1 (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I used Twinkle for the nomination, so complaining about who was informed should be done there. It look like I came across the four versions during my regular sessions of New Page Patrolling. Then I do not assume that there are prior versions of years back. You know you can put in a request for restoration of articles fallen victim to incorrect deletions? Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

What I imagine happened is that you found the new articles via NNP and then followed the editor's other edits to find the Moira Gunn articles. Which is fine, but these were not new articles, as I have said, and you should have checked the history before nominating for deletion. It is also absolutely not appropriate to blame WP:TWINKLE, which most clearly says at the top "Be advised that you take full responsibility for any action performed using Twinkle. You must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies, or risk being blocked." Yup, I know about restoring articles, and am already in process with this. But what concerns me a bit is that you don't seem to see that you did anything wrong: making mistakes, admitting them and learning from them are all fine. --Slp1 (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I found the 3 other articles through Google in the same search that I used to sniff out the copyvio. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay that's fine, because how you found them is not particularly important. What is important is you understand that you must check the history of articles you nominate for speedy deletion first, most especially if you find them in any other way than NPP. Hopefully you have taken this onboard as it will prevent problems like this and the one mentioned by User:Kumargnana just below this. --Slp1 (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Another point: I did not delete the articles. As far as I know an administrator serves as safety check against faulty nominations. This did not happen. Did he fail too? Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, indeed the administrator made a mistake too. But as I said above making mistakes is fine; but one needs to admit them - without trying to blame others or technology- in order to learn from them. That's it from me. Happy editing. --Slp1 (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Kumargnana (workplace communication)

Hello, night of the big wind. You have nominated my article "workplace communication" for some reason. The thing is that I created the original article and it was fine. But before few days some editor added some content that was not notifiable and was unacceptable for Wikipedia. I think that is the reason for you nominating my article. Now I've deleted the extra content that was added after my original article and now I'm sure that the article is worthy of staying in Wikipedia. So, I kindly request you to reconsider your decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumargnana (talk • contribs) 05:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I have placed a request for speedy close as keep. You are right that the original version was okay but that someone had screwed up the article. Now you have restored the article in your version, the article is okay. No need for removal. Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Ned Chaillet

Thanks for (most of) the disambig edits to the Ned Chaillet page.

However, I'm not convinced that Peter Cox (author) is right – no credits in common with the list here. Do you know for sure that these are the same person? They look like different people to me.

I'm not convinced that David Brooks (actor) is right either – he could have been in that he died only two days before a broadcast which undoubtedly would have been recorded more than two days in advance, but his biography says He remained active as an actor up through the 1980s and He died at the age of 83 at the Jewish Home and Hospital in Manhattan which makes it doubtful that he was working in London in the month before his death in 1999.

I'm absolutely convinced that Richard Long (actor) is wrong - he died 22 years before By Jeeves!!

I'll revert these three. Jim Craigie (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Iew, I made a lousy job out of that. I should have been more attentive. Please revert them, because they are clearly wrong. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

• News and notes: Arabic Wikipedia gets video intros, Smithsonian gifts images, and WikiProject Conservatism scrutinized

• In the news: Why Wikipedia survives while others haven't; Wikipedia as an emerging social model; Jimbo speaks out

• WikiProject report: History in your neighborhood: WikiProject NRHP

• Featured content: Brazil's boom-time dreams of naval power: The ed17 explains the background to a new featured topic

• Arbitration report: Case requests on ethnic strife and a WikiProject declined, Abortion case stalls but topic bans look to be lightened on amendment

• Technology report: WMDE renew investment in Toolserver, first offsite backup programme of Wikimedia begun

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Burma

Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at Dr. Blofeld's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Govt College of Technology, Coimbatore

It's interesting, but rather sad, to see that you and 3 other editors (as well as a bot) edited this stub without realising it should have been redirected to the long-established article at Government College of Technology, Coimbatore! 85.211.13.188 (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that your edit was to add a {{stub}} tag - please remember that per WP:FOOTERS any stub tag goes after categories, in fact after everything except inter-language links. Thanks. 85.211.13.188 (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Something to make your life easier!

Hi there The Banner! I've just come across one of your articles, and noticed that you had to create titles for your url links manually, or were using bare urls as references.

You might want to consider using this tool - it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script on Special:MyPage/common.js, or or Special:MyPage/vector.js, then paste the bare url (without [...] brackets) between your <ref></ref> tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for pdf documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well. Happy editing! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

ruthlessly stolen from Entanio's page. Will start using it soon. Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Oak Hill edit - disagree please explain

Please explain why you are removing the section on Oak Hill. You need to explain to me the issue you have with it. It appears you think it is a promo which it is not. It is listing the teaching curriculum used which will be of interest to readers. These are given as reference/links. That is what wikipedia is about.

--CCeducator (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately is the exact methode of teaching (Shurley and Saxon) absolutely not relevant. There are hundreds of teaching methodes. Besides that, the websites you point to are completely promotional and therefore not allowed. Basic and cold information is all we need for the encyclopedia.

Second, you have clearly a Conflict of Interest with this article. It is extremely difficult to write neutral and objective about something you are closely involved with (I made that mistake myself, so you are not the only one). Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

First, let me make it very clear that I do not have a COI with this article. I am not affiliated with this school whatsoever. I am very knowledgeable about classical, Christian education and am undertaking an effort to put information in the wiki about such schools starting with those in Virginia. I have in fact carefully read the Wiki COI page and see no conflict of interest. If you seen one please specify why you see it.

Second, the curriculum (method of teaching) is important. It is a distinctive of this type of education (classical). Saxon math and Shirley Grammar are specific texts aimed at classical education (grammar stage). If you object to the link to their web page I can (sort of) see that. If people are interested they can simply Google it or they will already know about these programs (and be looking for schools which use them). If you want to better understand classical education (and the Trivium) I suggest a short article The Lost Tools of Learning.

Finally, I appreciate your concern and your effort to explain them to me. I would appreciate your comments on what I said above. Thanks. --CCeducator (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Sergio Franchi discography

Dear Night of the Big Wind: Hello there in Ireland. My late husband was a famous ballroom dancer in Ireland. He and I visited there together many times. He died in 1990. Regarding my just created discography page-- would like to discuss several of the points you have made.. but I got some help I didn't ask for and someone (Bearcat, I believe) has got the discussion page and article page unlinked. That should be corrected shortly. First Issue: Sergio Franchi is not a living person, as he died in 1990. Were you refering to him or someone else? Will save the rest for discussion page attached to the article... when it is properly linked again. Thanks, CatherineCathlec (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Please use discuss page

You have been significantly altering the Oak Hill Christian School article.

I have established a discussion on the discussion page.

Please let's has this out properly there rather than just undoing each other.

Clearly you have an issue, but this is the second time you have done this. I attempted to discuss this with you, but saw no response on your page above when I started working this today.

Please work with me to establish a consensus.

The implications of your edits extend beyond this specific article.

--CCeducator (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Look at your own talkpage for an explanation! Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I just did - you are too fast for me. Here is the problem. Creating a new article (I am flattered) is going too far. The definition I gave is specific to only SOME classical schools. Further, to make it a separate article (and any good) would require very extensive work. (I had enough trouble crafting what I wrote). Please recognize that the classical teaching method is interpreted differently by different people. There already exist articles trying to work thru these issues - I have spent some time bouncing around them. All I am trying to do is provide simple articles on schools and have them well referenced. Hopefully you can live with this. As I stated if we head down your path there are implications for a number of school articles and for a number of articles on classical things. I appreciate your help, but I think deleting the section and making a new article is a serious mistake. --CCeducator (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Classical teaching method

A tag has been placed on Classical teaching method, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

a split off article that turned out to be a double of Classical education movement

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You are fast! --CCeducator (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I do make mistakes and am not afraid to admit that... Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello. As a fellow NPP backlog patroller, I see you have trouble with marking deleted pages. There are two ways of doing it:

Recreating

1. Click "Start article"
2. Write {{db-unpatrolled}}
3. Save Page
4. Mark as Patrolled
5. Wait for page to be deleted eventually

Magic Spell

Main page: Wikipedia:Magic spell to deal with "unpatrollable" pages

Example: "hHat deleted without redirect"

1. Look at the URL
2. Change where it says title=hHat to title=existing_article_name
3. Scroll to the bottom of selected article.
4. Mark as patrolled

Note: Even though it will say "The page 'Hat' has been marked as patrolled", It will mark "hHat" as patrolled

I hope that helped. Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 22:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL, in fact, I had no problem with them. Not having any clue what to do, I just skipped them :-) I have now used method 1 at Independent Pilots and hope that works out correct. If it works well, I have another trick in the book. Thanks for the advice! Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Haha. I always use the magic spell because I think that the backlog at C:CSD is long enough as is, and if you can skip that, it makes the people who delete page's lives easier. But it's your choice. Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 23:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Need to test that, but at least one method works. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

G4

Speedy G4 is only used when the previous material was deleted at an AfD ; being deleted as a speedy or prod does not count. My previous speedy as a hoax , in fact, was not altogether correct--however weird, the material is apparently real enough to have been discussed. I did however delete Denver Airport Mystery as a copyvio of this DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I did not know that. Night of the Big Wind _talk 05:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello The Banner/Archive01! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

• From the editors: A call for contributors

• Opinion essay: There is a deadline

• Interview: Contracting for the Foundation

• In the news: Are Wikipedians reluctant journalists?; Wikipedia:The Musical

• WikiProject report: Great WikiProject Logos

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Abortion; request for amendment on Climate Change case

• Technology report: WMF launches coding challenge, WMDE starts hiring for major new project

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

csd misconception

Its a common misconception that nobody but admins can decline speedies. I am an admin myself and believed that for a time. Any editor who is not the creator of the page may remove the csd tag. In this particular case, the person who removed it was also an admin so I assume they were declining in an official capacity. Thanks for your work patrolling new pages! Syrthiss (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Unpatrollables

I was happy to delete Maternal Oral Health for you - I had caused the problem in the first place! But for future reference you may care to look at this magic spell to deal with "unpatrollable" pages. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

A few days ago I was pointed at two methods to solve unpatrollables. Unfortunately, I do not understand the Magic spell trick so I stay safely at the {{db-unpatrolled}} path... Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Libby Police Department (Montana)

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

A tag has been placed on Libby Police Department (Montana) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you can assert the importance of the subject, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

See the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies.
VRMansfield (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC) As you know nothing about small town Police Departments in Montana can you explain why you marked this article for speedy deletion? There are several Police Departments around the United States with Pages, why can't my town have one?

Because the police force is too small and plain not notable. Six officers in total is not convincing. The force was not involved with any special events and for a time it did not even exist! Besides that, look at the police force of Billings. 142 officers against the six of your town. Ow, and there is no right on an article if there are similar others. Every article is judged on its own merits. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can judge what is "convincing" and what is not in Montana as far as Police go. The fact that they lost an Officer in the line of duty in itself makes them unlike most Police Departments in Montana. I am sorry but I just don't see what the issue is. I look at lots of police pages everyday and there are several with very few officers. Some of the Texas Constables are one person departments and have a page. I would never decide what is notary about a restaurant because I know nothing about them. In fact to tell the truth they are all the same to me. That said I know I know nothing about them so I would never pretend to. I am just wondering what your qualifications are to know if a Police Department in Montana is "convincing" enough to have its own page. VRMansfield (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The deletion tag was removed by someone who understood my argument. VRMansfield (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It was the nice way of getting the article removed. I have now put a CSD on it for copyvio... Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Auto Italia South East

Just to let you know that an article you nom'd for CSD was undeleted in WP:REFUND. You may choose to WP:AFD it if you believe it still meets deletion requirements. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism? I think the author was a bit pissed off :-) Clearly, he is one of the many people who claim that promotion is something totally different then advertising. It look at it in a few days to give him time to improve the article. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am the author of the [Auto Italia South East]] page, Bwilkins has brought it to my attention that I wasn't following the discussion in the right place so first off I apologise for the accusation of vandalism. It seemed to me that the page had been deleted with only a note saying that it was promotional with no explanation as to why, yet the burden of proof rests on me to explain why it is NOT promotional, which can seem a little backwards. Listing some of the exhibitions that have taken place at a gallery, and also listing the publications written about them seemed to me only to be stating fact, hopefully adding veracity to the article. I do appreciate that there will be differing opinions on the matter and will in future do more to enter into discussions before I get pissed off! It is a subtle question as to what can be construed as promotion or advertising for a not-for-profit organisation within a framework like Wikipedia. I will look over the article and do my best to remove anything that seems biased. best Chaosandvoid (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I get back to the article on monday. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Yoghurt". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by December 19, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Vandalizing???

I made a change to the Jack Kevorkian page and forgot to log in. You said I vandalized it. How does adding one of his books constitute vandalizing? He did indeed write a book called The Story of Dissection. I have it on my shelf. Confused! At any rate, I added it again and put the books in chronological order. Please respond. InYourFaceNewYorker (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)InYourFaceNewYorker

You have fallen victim of a combination of strange book titles and loads of IP's vandalizing the article. My apologies for my mistake. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me guess... Some jerk putting in titles like, How to Kill People or something asinine and juvenile like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by InYourFaceNewYorker (talk • contribs) 06:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

• Opinion essay: The monster under the rug

• Recent research: WikiSym; predicting editor survival; drug information found lacking; RfAs and trust; Wikipedia's search engine ranking justified

• News and notes: German Wikipedia continues image filter protest

• In the news: Citizendium on the rocks, Shankbone celebrated, and the week in vandalism

• Discussion report: Proposal to return this section from hiatus is successful

• WikiProject report: 'In touch' with WikiProject Rugby union

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Abortion case stalls, request for clarification on Δ, discretionary sanctions streamlined

• Technology report: Wikipedia Zero announced; New Orleans successfully hacked

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Yoghurt, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 12:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Speedy deletion nomination of 1808 (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on 1808 (disambiguation), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

turned out to be double

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at Virago250's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: SWAG (asset class)

Hello Night of the Big Wind, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on SWAG (asset class) to a proposed deletion tag. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. — Joseph Fox 18:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi Night of the Big Wind. I've been thinking about your adoption request for a while and regretfully I'm going to have to decline. Generally, my adoption program focusses on integration with the community, helping users with their interactions and giving them an overview of policy. I don't think you will benefit from any of these factors. Really, you need someone with copyediting skills and general writing skills. It's not an area I can help particularly - I don't rate my writing skills very highly. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined

Just FYI, I have declined your speedy deletion request on Martin Schibbye. I believe that the claim that he edited two different news magazine, which are themselves notable enough for a WP article, is a sufficient claim of importance to pass A7. I did tag the article for notability, though it's probably sufficient even to pass that higher standard. However, feel free to AfD if you still think the person non-notable; be sure to check WP:BEFORE for references, and note that since Schibbye is Swedish, relevant references may be in Swedish rather than English. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion: TruConnect Mobile

I’d like discuss further the deletion of TruConnect Mobile, because I believe all of the references establish the subject’s significance as an organization meeting the needs of today’s consumers – in fact, it was even covered in TIME. Additionally, the article was written to include limited content in an effort to avoid coming across as advertising or marketing material. Please advise on how I can edit this article so that it can be reinstated. DJADave (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mitchell Landzaat

The article Mitchell Landzaat has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable actor, he played minor roles such as cops, a helmsman and a handyman in TV movies/mini-series according to IMDB. He also was stunt double in yet another TV movie. And acting in commercials certainly isn't notable (unless it's a celebrity tie-in or the like).

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 22:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Mitchell Landzaat for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mitchell Landzaat is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitchell Landzaat until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 23:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Protection request

Just letting you know that I declined a protection request from WP:RFPP that you submitted. Protection is a "last resort" - we do it only in urgent circumstances. This one would be better handled by opening a dialogue on the talk page and inviting concerned parties to it. - Philippe 02:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011

• Special report: A post-mortem on the Indian Education Program pilot

• News and notes: Wikimedia Norway awarded, Halloween on the Main Page, Wikimedia UK recognised

• In the news: The Economist assays the encyclopaedia's challenges, Jimbo speaks on net future, and an inclusionist alternative emerges.

• Discussion report: Special report on the ArbCom Elections steering RfC

• WikiProject report: Booting up with WikiProject Computer Science

• Featured content: Slow week for Featured content

• Arbitration report: Δ saga returns to arbitration, while the Abortion case stalls for another week

• Technology report: Full steam ahead on Visual Editor, the avoidance of lock-breaking and 1.18b1 release

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

3RR warning

Your recent editing history at Bank Transfer Day shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block. If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Start counting, mr. Censor. Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Reported at WP:AN3. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Censorship, mr. Rubin... Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at Bank Transfer Day

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Bank Transfer Day. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Night of the Big Wind reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 48h). EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

The Banner (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This block is excessive in term. I did three reverts against somebody who did not commit any discussion. The fourth revert was against a vandal. Secondly: the edit war was already over. The last of the three edits was at 9.15am. The revert of the vandalistic edit at 11.24 am. The report from Arthur Rubin came in at 14.36, more then three hours later. Point three was that I did a good faith edit, responded on the comments in the summeraries, but still get accused of not negotiating about the wording. The one who was reverting me also did not start any discussion or negotiation, what makes this punishment onesided and therefor unfair. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The edit warring is unambiguous, as is your false accusations of vandalism. Content disputes are not WP:VANDALISM, and referring to good-faith editors as vandals is a personal attack. The length is by-the-book, since it is your second block for edit warring. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Then can somebody tell me why Most banks do not at care at all that their expensive high-maintenance-low-revenue customers are walking away. They save money with that, what was just the purpose of the announced fees. fails on Incorrect sentence grammar.???? Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that's esy. They save money with that, what was just the purpose of the announced fees. What does "what" refer to? The sentence is incomprehensible. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it refers to "saving money"? Or is that too difficult to understand? Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah. That's not in any way standard English grammar. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know it is not illegal to have Dutch as first language, but in effect that gave me the block. Night of the Big Wind _talk 06:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No, but when there were objections to the edit you should have stopped. When you didn't, it became 'illegal'. There is nothing so pressing about that edit that it needed to be done regardless of objections. If it matters, I applaud you for contributing to the encyclopedia when English isn't your first language. I have only contributed one article to the French wikipedia, and was so nervous about it I had a native French-speaking colleague check it. Hope this helps. Syrthiss (talk) 12:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There were no objections, I was reverted without usefull comment... Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Do people just spontaneously and without comment revert good edits here, in your experience? Syrthiss (talk) 12:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they do. Mostly when they are inconvenient or contradict someones opinion. Wikipedia is not immune for POV-pushers and systemetic bias. My first edit-war block was against a POV-pusher. ClaudioSantos has by now the broadest topic-ban ever issued. And the systemetic bias can be found on two main points: 1) subjects relating to the USA are far earlier considered notable then subjects from elsewhere; 2) wikiproject-rules about notability van override the Wikipedia:Notability-rules, even if the subject is clearly not notable. That is extreem frustrating. Just check on American schools (always considered notable, even if they just barely came into existence) and seaworthy ships (considered notable as soon as they are longer then 100 feet). Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, can I get your attention for Tubber, Ireland? Some anonymous has added two promotional external links... Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done by another user. diff. Syrthiss (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, all you need to do to be unblocked is assure us that you will refrain from edit warring in the future. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I can not guarantee this. I do not start editing wars to get my "right", but usually I am pulled into an editing war. I can guarantee the first, but not the second. So I think it better not to guarantee anything... Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. If you draw future edit warring blocks, you'll notice that they escalate; the next one will likely be a week. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that. And I noticed that you can get blocked for an edit war several hours after an edit war ended... Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You did sound a bit disappointed that I did not promise not to be involved in edits wars anymore. Unfortunately, I know my self well enough to know that a promise on that point could be a lie. And because Wikipedia is for an important part based on trust, I do not want to issue a statement that can be a lie. It is more honest to say I can not promise that then saying I promise that and break it. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Darn, a rational and honest person. Well, at least try; your contributions are too good too be reduced or diminished. And I'm shortening your block to "time served". I don't see much reason to keep it on -- and you're right, it was quite after-the-fact. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I will try to be a good boy here. Night of the Big Wind _talk 06:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The block was quite after-the-fact, but the nomination (mine) was prompt, considering my time zone (UTC -8). No offense intended, and I did try to warn you. That being said, I would have had no objection to it being a formal warning, as I can't find a previous 3RR warning in your history. I have been blocked for edit warring, sometimes incorrectly (2 of the 4 really were vandalism), but you really do need to be careful when adding material which is not quite as in the source or of questionable relevance, especially in controversial articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope you are kidding now. This is utter nonsense. Please avoid me a bit, for instance by not commenting on my talkpage. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

If you think there is a conflict of interest please don't link to personal pages such as the linkedin page you linked to at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Feel free to discuss evidence of conflict of interest which is present in edits on Wikipedia. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Paul van Herck

I've removed the WP:BLPPROD which you added to the Paul van Herck article. That process is (as the name implies) only applicable to biographies of living people. The article clearly indicates that the subject died 22 years ago. Pburka (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I did read the article, but overlooked the date of death. Sorry. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I shouldn't have been rude. I've been finding a lot of BLPPRODs on articles of dead subjects, placed there by different editors. Sorry about my brusqueness. Pburka (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

How predictable...

I get one of your articles deleted and as "revenge" you PROD articles I created (the Eef van Breen article wasn't even started by me, I had made a redirect and someone created an article over it, the wiki software counts the redirect maker as starter).

Well go ahead PROD them all, people here don't want to read about boring Dutch subjechts just as much as they don't want to read about a "famous" advertising star and bit part actor, creating articles took my mind off some other shit a while ago and I had already stopped doing that a while back.

I'm off for a wikibreak. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 18:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I just used the same scale as you did, so stop crying please. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Mitchell Landzaat

I have restored the Mitchell Landzaat article to your userspace at User:Night of the Big Wind/Mitchell Landzaat together with its talk page. Feel free to work on them but they probably shouldn't be moved back to the article space until you can find more sources. There is nothing wrong with using IMDb as a place to start but it isn't a reliable source by English Wikipedia standards and can't be used to demonstrate notability. As for the deletion rationale itself, I based my action on the consensus in the AfD discussion and would only delete another actor if the consensus was likewise to delete. But for actors with similar levels of notability, several minor roles with limited reliable sourcing that is certainly the most likely outcome. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Maalai Nerathu Mazhaithuli

Hi. I have declined your speedy deletion request for Maalai Nerathu Mazhaithuli, as I don't see how it is obvious vandalism (although it does seem to be confused over the title). But if you really think it is vandalism, please do feel free to explain further and I'll be happy to reconsider. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

If you read the content of this Page you can feel completely irrelevant and inappropriate data bound together. Please delete it!!! Abdul raja (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

"Completely irrelevant and inappropriate data bound together" does not constitute vandalism and is not eligible for deletion via CSD:G3. You are welcome to correct it, or propose it for deletion via {{PROD}} -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

PS: It looks as if someone is working on it as we speak -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Varsha Gupta

Hi, I've described the reason why i created this Page. Please visit the Talk Page and give your view on it.Thanks Abdul raja (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Mayhem Festival 2012

Hello Night of the Big Wind. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mayhem Festival 2012, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: not obviously promotional - PROD as WP:CRYSTAL may well apply though. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

• News and notes: ArbCom nominations open, participation grants finalized, survey results on perceptions on Wikipedia released

• In the news: Fundraising vs ads redux, WikiConference India nigh, a world lit up with articles

• WikiProject report: Having a Conference with WikiProject India

• Featured content: Writing featured content: Advice from Sturmvogel 66; Sports, sports, sports!

• Arbitration report: Abortion and Betacommand 3 in evidence phase, three case requests outstanding

• Technology report: Coding Challenge results; Wikimedians to wait and see if Athena really does represent "wisdom, courage and inspiration"

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yikes

Did you see the discussion at Talk:Ian Dowbiggin and BLPN? Not pretty, IMO. Even a sock may be making legitimate edits others do not understand and they can not explain. Jesanj (talk) 06:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I stay safely at a distance. Night of the Big Wind _talk 06:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The sock would not explain the edits on Talk. That's where he made his biggest mistake.  Jabbsworth  14:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think displaying ignorance of how things should be done around here while simultaneously insisting newbies observe technicalities is productive. Jesanj (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think baiting me is productive either. By "baiting" I am referring to your previous comment, which makes a mockery of the collegial atmosphere you are supposed to engender at WP, as well as the inflammatory, sneering comments you made on my Talk page. Your thinly veiled attempt to canvass NoTBW into the fray here is also counter to the spirit of the project. Please stop with the interpersonal bitchiness and leave other editors to get on with the task.  Jabbsworth  00:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It was more of a vent and a perhaps "you could have done more to fix the issue sooner" message to NoBW. Hmmmm... what's more likely, what I said, or me canvassing one person towards a noticeboard, where the discussion was. Jesanj (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Quality restaurant for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Quality restaurant is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quality restaurant until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Colonel Tom 07:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Analytic Sciences Corporation

Night of the Big Wind (also posting to Jac16888's Talk Page):

A tag has been placed on The Analytic Sciences Corporation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam andWikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Night of the Big Wind talk14:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• I was very surprised to find your notice of "Speedy deletion" for this article. Where is the "unambiguous advertising"? The article cites either facts or (in one instance) a claim by TASC, namely its self-description -- caveated by statement "The firm describes itself as" thus making this also a fact-only statement. The entry's tone is decidedly neutral, with no word of praise and few (if any) qualifying adjectives. PLEASE NOTE CAREFULLY: (1) The firm is new, so there is little history or information available -- that's why I wrote it. (2) What you seem to have taken for "unambiguous advertising" is in fact rather negative. If you had read through the entry carefully, you should have noticed that the firm has had: (a) very few wins of note since inception, (b) an initial period of firing (clearly implied by the spate of rehiring), and (c) an unflattering (but straightforwardly and factually stated) origin, namely TASC's spin-off by Northrop Grumman driven by new need to comply with WSARA, not because anyone had identified the spin-off as an advantageous business decision -- all information TASC no doubt would not like to have "advertised" in a highly factual, neutral account like the one I have written. Perhaps if I had written an article with some kind of bias or motive (as your flagging has suggested), then you woud not have missed the implications of the entry -- the price of even-handed, neutral writing?

• Further, let me state here clearly that I have no affinity nor affiliation with TASC: can you please state the same?

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article. You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

• Please take a moment to look at author profile pages before making such generic statements

• Overall, please be sure to read both articles and about authors more carefully before you slap inaccurate assessments on them

--Aboudaqn (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Dominik Knoll

Hello Night of the Big Wind. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Dominik Knoll, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: the New Orleans magazine people to watch conveys importance, as does being guest speaker at the world economic forum and the clinton global initiative. Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhagmati

Seems that you've been lead astray by a missing H. Are you certain that you want to pursue this nomination?   — C M B J   13:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhagmati.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nabagram Vidyapith

Hi. I have declined your deletion request at Nabagram Vidyapith - in the A7 deletion template it says "Note that schools are not eligible under this criterion. See CSD A7." -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Oops, wrong footed by Wikipedia:CSD#A7 due to it referring to "educational institutions" instead of schools. Any idea why schools are excluded? Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't know really, but I think there's something somewhere which says all secondary schools are automatically notable - but I can't find it right now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I do not agree with that, but Wikipedia has more of those stupid rules. Declaring all sea-going ships notable, for instance. Too much power for the projects to overrule WP:GNG. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure I agree with blanket auto-notable rules like that either - it opens the way, for example, for someone who has a list of, say, all the schools in a particular country, to create thousands of stubs of little individual value -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

If I was in an evil mood, I could make articles about all former one-classroom (!) schools in the vicinity here. I think there were 17 national schools around here with less then 10 pupils when they were closed down. (County Clare lost half of its population between 1840 and now) As far as I know only a few of them were older then a hundred years, what would make them notable in my opinion. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC) sticks with his traditional musicians and Michelin starred restaurants

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Automated Note Search Tool

Hello Night of the Big Wind. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Automated Note Search Tool to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Maltman's Green School

Hello Night of the Big Wind. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Maltman's Green School, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article is not promotional only. Currently badly written and unsupported by any refs, but that doesn't make it eligable for G11. Consider the possibility of PROD or (IMO preferably) AfD as it is a fairly old school, some some refs on the history may be found. Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

LOL, do you accept any of my nominations? I will look at them later. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, pinky swear I don't look at the taggers ;). If you re-read the article, and G11 (Pages that are exclusively promotional) and keep in mind this is meant for "x is a great y, and and you should certainly get one/a subscription/apply for one/enroll here", you can probably see that it doesn't fit here. Am I correct to guess that the thought was "A7 does not apply to schools so I have to pick a different criterion" here? Keep in mind that the criteria for speedy deletion should be used for "this page needs to disappear from Wikipedia RIGHT NOW". A7 is a bit of an odd one out there, as it's more of a "this subject should NEVER be covered in wikipedia in any way, means of form", but if you keep the first definition as a touchstone for tagging (does this need to go RIGHT NOW? no? then go for PROD or AfD), you will notice it's a great filtering criterium for yourself. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, what is the difference between PROD en AfD? The discussion? Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

A prod is a suggestion to delete, with the assertion there is full consensus for it, and no discussion is needed. If anyone disagrees, then there is no full consensus, and the PROD fails. When there is no objection after 7 days, it is assumed there are no objections, and any administrator can delete the article at their discretion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Assyrian Black March Movement

Hello Night of the Big Wind. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Assyrian Black March Movement, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting! I could only find 30 Google hits (most from Wikipedia and clones) and just one on Google News. So the "Assyrian Black March Movement" is not notable at all. The "Assyrian Black March" could be notable, with 48000 hits on Google. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The article has links to articles in the Chicago Tribune and the Liverpool Leader. It may not be a notable event, but in my opinion the article has asserted sufficient significance that it isn't a candidate for A7 speedy deletion. Try PROD or AfD instead. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read what I write: the movement is not notable. The march might be. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. According to the article, there have been marches in more than 30 countries. Do you think I should delete this article because it uses the word "movement" in its title and encourage its author to write articles about each specific march? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, there are no sources about the movement. They are all about the individual marches. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Hi folks, just a comment from me. It's important to remember that an article does not need to actually satisfy notability requirements to avoid speedy deletion, as the bar for speedy deletion avoidance is deliberately set lower - just a claim of importance of some kind is all that's needed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

  Oh, and sources aren't actually needed either -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Oi, I have a bad day with administrators today. Maybe my line of thinking is not standard or even considered strange... Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you ever feel the need to let off steam about admins, my Talk page is always open :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes I have the feeling of "If you can't beat them, join them". But after the mud throwing when I applied for autopatrol in september, I had immedeately enough. But clashing twice on one day with an administrator because they can't follow my line of thinking is new. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I want to echo Boing!'s sentiment. If you ever need to let of steam, his talk page is always open. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, both of you. But sometimes you just have a bad day. My GAA-club lost after playing a magnificent game and that hurts. (Just some SPAM: Kilmurry Ibrickane GAA) Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Gia Trimble

Hello Night of the Big Wind. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Gia Trimble to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Eric Cormier

Hello Night of the Big Wind. Just to let you know, I declined the speedy deletion you suggested for this article, as the subject appears to have some third-party coverage. Regards, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Jennifer Lim (theatre actress) AfD

Hello,

Could you please take a fresh look at this article and your AfD nomination? I've expanded and referenced the article in recent hours. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of " Birthplace of Svetozar Corovic" article

Could you please take a fresh look at this article and your speedy deletion nomination? I've expanded and referenced the article in recent hours. Thank you. Bizutage (talk) 09:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

• News and notes: Last-minute candidates for ArbCom, the Sue Gardner European Tour hits London

• In the news: Indian wikiconference heralds expansion, fundraiser in Silicon Valley major donor coup, import of Wikipedia reconsidered

• Discussion report: Much ado about censorship

• WikiProject report: Working on a term paper with WikiProject Academic Journals

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: End in sight for Abortion case, nominations in 2011 elections

• Technology report: Mumbai and Brighton hacked; horizontal lists have got class

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

BlackBerry Torch

In the template, you renamed the "BlackBerry Torch" link to "BlackBerry Torch (series)" without editing the "BlackBerry Torch" article title. i've reverted your edits, but please talk to me if you have any other suggestions. Thanks, --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It would have been a better idea when you had checked your own links. By reverting, you brought back a link to a disambiguation page. So again I corrected the page. PLease check you links in the futere to avoid links to disambiguation pages. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Mentorship

Hello! It is a pleasure to meet you. I would be honored to be your mentor and to help you with any thing you need. I know a thing or two about discouragement on Wikipedia. Awhile back I had tried writing and translating articles on the German Wikipedia only to have some of my articles deleted because of my lack of German fluency and because someone thought the article topics were not notable enough. I know it is nice to be around other encouraging editors who appreciate the effort to create new content on Wikipedia.

I've looked at a few of the articles you have written, and most look to be in good shape. I've only had to do some minor copy editing. Some of the errors are those that even native English speakers make (such as "it's" vs "its"). Some of the other edits I made were more stylistic – it was not that I was necessarily fixing an error but just improving the wording so that it flows better. If you have any specific questions about any of the edits I have made to the articles you have written, let me know. I'll try my best to explain why I changed the wording or punctuation. One other way that you can improve your articles is by improving the citation style. Please see WP:CITE for general citation guidelines and how to avoid link rot. Also read WP:Citing sources/Example style to learn about the appropriate way to italicize titles and such. Using WP:Citation templates can also help to make proper citations easier. Let me know if you have any questions. Happy Editing! --Tea with toast (話) 21:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Fickling & Company Building

Hi, just wanted to let you know I've declined your speedy deletion request for Fickling & Company Building. I don't believe the article has been through an AfD, at least I couldn't find the discussion. CSD:G4 only applies to articles deleted in an AfD, not via speedy or Prod. Best, Sparthorse (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

aha, did not know that. Now nominated as AfD. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

List of musicians that have recorded the song Skibbereen

Because, as I stated in my edit summary WP:SONGCOVER. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that aplies to individual songscovers, not to a list of songcovers. The reason I had split it off, was that the list has the potention of getting very long, overshadowing the song itself. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It applies to a single cover, two covers, and "lists" of covers - especially unreferenced lists. The issue of potential doesn't even come it. Do you want to revert your edits or shall I? --Richhoncho (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to start an edit war, but you are wrong. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't do edit wars, but apparently you do. An AfD would be more appropriate. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess you did not read the policy you are refering to, so here the main part: When a song has renditions (recorded or performed) by more than one artist, discussion of a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (not a separate article), but only if at least one of the following applies (bolded by me). This is not a discussion of a single rendition, but an overview of album with the song "Skibbereen" or "Old Skibbereen". You should not use interpretations that are not stated in the text. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on my user page. You will note that not one piece of information has been lost - as for deleting articles, you're way ahead of me, judging by the comments on your userpage! I also made a small apology on the deletion page, you can read it there. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hi. After you tagged The Analytic Sciences Corporation for speedy deletion [8], the author of the article, Aboudaqn (talk · contribs) placed a help-desk request [9]. Others have responded - it's now archived here - but maybe Aboudaqn hadn't seen the response, and asked me about it on my talk page [10]. I've answered, saying not to worry; and in that specific case, hopefully it'll be OK, and we can move along.

But, when I came to your talk page here, I can see that there are many other recent, declined speedies from you - I count about 12, both before and after that one.

So I'm asking you to please be much more careful, and circumspect with speedy-tagging. Speedy deletion is only for total rubbish. Vandalism, copyvio, attacks, and pages that have absolutely no chance whatsoever of being made acceptable. Wikipedia has no deadline, we're not in a rush - so for anything beyond "total rubbish" it does absolutely no harm at all if we wait a few days (using PROD / AFD) - and it avoids problems.

I used to be more "enthusiastic" about tagging things myself, too - but I learned my lesson the hard way. People can get very upset with mis-taggings. So now, I always err on the side of caution - and I suggest you start doing that too. If you're in any doubt whatsoever about whether something is, or is not, "speedyable" then I highly recommend you do not use speedy.

Please note, I'm not some rampant inclusionist. I agree, for example, that it's silly that "educational establishments" are exempt, and I'm tempted to write about "Chzz's School Of Wikipedia" which operates out of my kitchen but... that'd be POINTy, and the policy is what it is. Whenever it comes up for discussion I make my point there, but of course we have to go with consensus.

I'm sure it's no fun for you to keep getting messages about speedys being declined, so I hope you'll take this as good advice, and that this will be the end of the matter; I'm sure you're intentions are good, and I'd hate to discourage you. Keep up the good work, but please try to avoid so many mis-taggings; it can drive editors away (new, or older). After all, we're here to build the Encyclopaedia, and even though true junk needs deleting, where possible it's always better if we can fix things.

Best,  Chzz  ►  06:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Request denied. I normally tag articles from the end of the list of new pages. Those articles are at least two weeks old. It just happens that people suddenly awake out of hibernation after a tag or nomination is placed and finally finishes the article or greatly improve it based on the comments made. Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The age of them is irrelevant.

Several users have told you that you've mis-tagged articles for speedy deletion. I see, below, that yet another one has done so today.

As I hate wasting time with paperwork, I will say it once more here, first: if you keep inappropriately tagging pages for speedy-deletion, then you may be blocked from editing.

I sincerely hope that is the end of it.  Chzz  ►  16:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

As I stated before: request denied. I stick to the rules, especially Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

For your information: User:Night of the Big Wind/CSD log. I make mistakes, just like everybody else. And I prefer to be too harsh, then to be too soft. Better a CSD denied, then spam or promo into the encyclopedia! Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of musicians that have recorded the song Skibbereen

For civility's sake, here is notification that I have opened the AfD debate. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Your nomination for deletion of – Orange County LAFCO

Just a note, you did not transclude this article in the Articles for deletion log page when you nominated it for deletion, as required in step 3 of the subsection "How to nominate a single page for deletion” on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion page. Another user has performed this step for you to complete the process. In the future, please follow all of the required steps when nominating an article for deletion. Thank you. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• This also occurred with your nomination of John Lucas Miller Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I always use Twinkle as instrument for the nominations. For reasons unknown to me, that program sometimes fails without warning. Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of musicians that have recorded the song Skibbereen

A tag has been placed on List of musicians that have recorded the song Skibbereen, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

own request. If a AfD-nominator resorts to personal attacks to get a article away, I give up.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

• News and notes: Arb's resignation sparks lightning RfC, Fundraiser 2011 off to a strong start, GLAM in Qatar

• In the news: The closed, unfriendly world of Wikipedia, fundraiser fun and games, and chemists vs pornstars

• Recent research: Quantifying quality collaboration patterns, systemic bias, POV pushing, the impact of news events, and editors' reputation

• WikiProject report: The Signpost scoops The Bugle

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Voting underway in the elections, finally a final decision on Abortion, scant movement on requests

• Technology report: Foundation appears correct to back improved smartphone support; and how a Reddit slip meant no-one could read anything for thirty minutes

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Jake Evans (musician)

Hello Night of the Big Wind. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jake Evans (musician), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Being part of a notable entity indicates importance/significance. Thank you. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

---

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Just letting you know there are no hard feelings about this. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: The South African Depression and Anxiety Group

That page is mostly referenced with primary sources, contains also peacock terms, but does not fit under #G11. Please read again the CSD criteria and maybe try to do some other work like reviewing WP:AFC submissions or clearing any WP:backlog. 'CSDing is not a game! mabdul 12:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I know that it is not a game. But the article is clearly promotional towards its speaking books. That is why I nominated it as G11. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion clearly stated that G11 is for Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

And then please explain me the CSD tag at Personyze? I don't see any advertising. There are several third party, reliable references in. Even a criticism section. Nothing solveable! Plrease read WP:SOFIXIT! mabdul 13:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

So fix it... Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, then explain me int the SADAG article the sections and phrases which are for Unambiguous advertising or promotion. I can't find them on the first look and thus not G11! mabdul 13:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Just one part: While this is a relatively novel form of intervention, Speaking Books have the potential to become effective tools in critical health information dissemination in lower- and middle-income community contexts. Particularly within the context of the public health crisis posed by the HIV & AIDS epidemic, such simple and effective tools for improving health knowledge and psychosocial coping skills in HIV risk populations are becoming invaluable. Bare information, clearly not... Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  Chzz  ►  13:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

If you can't beat them, report them. Old trick. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Pro-American bias

Regarding the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camden County Library discussion, I am perfectly willing to see similarly detailed information about every other country in the world. I may not find it very useful to have data about every college/university/library/town/whatever in, say, most countries in Africa, but doubtless people there - and anyone gathering data about them for various varieties of research - would find it useful, so I have no problem with its presence. (BTW... every time I run across some sports figure getting a page, I want to list it for deletion as non-notable, but I understand that it is notable by the current rules, and that people who care about such things - I don't, except for ergogenic drug use - find it useful. In other words, I sympathize with your feelings on the matter.) Allens (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion every subject should show why it is special among peers. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you say that it's possible for every member of a category to be special, or does at least one have to be left out? Allens (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Center for Media and Democracy

I've gone ahead and cleaned up the maintenance tags added to the above referenced article. The following have been removed:

1. two refimprove and self-published tags. Each statement in the article is cited, albeit with primary sources. Adding a SPS and two refimprove on top of the primarysources tag is clearly redundant and unnecessary. see WP:TC
2. rm advert and npov as redundant and lacking clarification; please clarify identified areas of concern and engage in discussion on talk page.
3. rm COI due to lack of identified COI editing.
4. rm notability due to national scope and awards received; while additional independent sources are needed, notability is established; if notability remains in question, please consider submitting for a community discussion. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 15:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Roos Vonk

No, I will not finish the article in my user space, due to lack of time. Feel free to finish it in my userspace and then move it to the name space. Andries (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools.
Message added 02:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but to what are you referring?

Secondly: could you take a look at this? That is a clear PA too. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHEM. Either sort out your attitude, or get blocked. Your choice.  Chzz  ►  02:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You are two hours late. The fire is already out. Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk page refactoring and 3RR

Please be mindful of the three revert rule, and also that removing other editors' comments from talk pages is considered vandalism. WP:RPA, which you continue to cite, is not applicable. It is not a personal attack to advise the closing administrator of your behavior. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a PA, jokerman, because it has nothing to do with the page involved. I consider it insulting and defamation! Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You've vandalized that page three times. If you do so again, you may be blocked without further warning. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Feck off, you waste of time. Do something usefull as writing articles instead of witchhunting articles you can destroy. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy now? Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for personal attacks

Evaluating the situation in the ANI listing and noting your most recent comment above ("Feck off, you waste of time"), I have blocked your account for 24 hours. I understand you may be unhappy about his tag, but even if the tag is wrong, you do not have license to behave like that towards other contributors. WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are policies, and you need to abide by them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

And his PA's go by without any action? While he is insulting me a driving me angry by going on and on and on, I get the blame. Guys, please, don't get fooled by him. He was out on getting me blocked, and now you give him what he wants: revenge over someone who is vocal about the way his is damaging the encyclopedia. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, what do you consider harassment? I object against three of his actions, not more.. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He didn't get you blocked, unless he logged into your account and typed "Feck off, you waste of time" and "Feck off, troll" or made the comments attributed to you at ANI.

In terms of his personal attacks, assuming you are talking about the AFD, the way to address that - if you felt it was an accusation "about personal behavior that lack[ed] evidence" - would be either to deny it at the AFD (and explain why it may appear that you are following him or why it is okay for you to follow him) or to convince the community that he is wrong and to have somebody uninvolved remove it, if appropriate. (As WP:RPA notes, comments that are seen as personal attacks can generally be removed from your own talk page with no drama but should not be removed from other pages unless the matter is clear-cut. Those kinds of comments are generally left where they are.) Scotty is not the only one who restored that comment to that page, which would suggest the matter is not clear cut. If there are other instances of personal attacks from him, I have not seen them.

Unfortunately, though, I am seeing a clear pattern from you, particularly with your latest posts. We all get angry on Wikipedia from time to time. I've had people put tags on my articles that I thought were frankly ridiculous. But turning the project into a battleground causes too much disruption. Sometimes it's better to brush it off and move on, sometimes it's better to politely explain why the tags are wrong, and sometimes it may even be necessary to bring the community in if the tagging is itself disruptive (and not just a minor nuisance), but it is never constructive to let things blow up out of control.

I don't give blocks for this kind of thing lightly and would not have issued this one if your comments were not so very clearly out of line without any evidence that you would de-escalate on your own. You need to be able to discuss your disagreement calmly, without the personal attacks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I tried to walk away, but he kept following and harassing. I had just written a new article that was ready to go online, but that is now blocked. And the templates with links to disambiguation pages (my personal niche more or less), stay as sloppy as they are. Only because someone got angry over the fact that I requested a review of a notability tag for a restaurant with two Michelin stars... Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You're still missing the point, I'm afraid. It's not because he got angry over your request of a review; it's because you said "Feck off, you waste of time" and "Feck off, you troll" and the other things you've been saying. If you had simply walked away from him, or had remained civil in disagreeing, you wouldn't be blocked. He may have made you angry, but the way you have handled the conflict is the problem. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

No, my agry replies are only part of the problem. Mr. Berg escaping untouched is the other part of the problem. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You still don't get it. See WP:NOTTHEM. Upon your return, I sincerely hope you will change your attitude.  Chzz  ►  08:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop hounding me. You are again hours late. Night of the Big Wind _talk 08:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• This kind of post can be considered baiting.[11]. Please stop. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I give you two articles to expand your knowledge to prevent future mistakes. You call that baiting? Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
    • P.S. You might start writing some articles. I spend my day off writing three articles on culinary subjects, hence the educational links. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Misusing my block

Can somebody take a look at Harry Boland, Kevin Boland and Cathal Brugha? Someone is misusing my block to revert his unconstructive and partly plain wrong edits. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I looked at Harry Boland just now, and the main issue appeared to me to be whether Boland's nationality should be wikilinked to Irish people or to the Republic of Ireland. My first thought here is that since Harry Boland died in 1922, and the "Republic of Ireland" did not come into being under that name until 1949 (see Republic of Ireland Act 1948), labelling his nationality as "Republic of Ireland" would seem to be an anachronism. In any case, this issue would seem at first blush to be a good-faith content dispute, which ought to be resolved via normal dispute resolution processes and with civility paramount as always. Again, I looked at this page only for the first time just now, and I've not had a chance to review the discussion or edit history, so my apologies if I'm stepping into the middle of something that has already been thoroughly hashed and re-hashed. — Richwales (talk) 07:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

They were good faith edits, primarily intended to add the family categories and alphabeticise the categories with some other copyediting along the way. As stated above, labelling nationality as the "Republic of Ireland" when it didn't exist (and I say this as someone who lives there presently and has close ties there) is an anachronism. "Irish people" is more suitable and is widely used in these circumstances across Wikipedia. Calling them "unconstructive" and "plain wrong" edits is bad faith on your part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.131 (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I have changed it today in[Irish Free State|Irish]]. That should be sufficient. "Irish people" is just not right, as it states also people from Irish decent. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. I couldn't care less about the whole Irish argument. Not my cup of tea. Just don't undo all the newly added categories again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.131 (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You still need to remove your comments about my unrelated block. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

• News and notes: Amsterdam gets the GLAM treatment, fundraising marches on, and a flourish of new admins

• In the news: A Wikistream of real time edits, a call for COI reform, and cracks in the ivory tower of knowledge

• Discussion report: Trial proposed for tool apprenticeship

• WikiProject report: This article is about WikiProject Disambiguation. For other uses...

• Featured content: This week's Signpost is for the birds!

• Arbitration report: Elections due to finish this week, little activity on Betacommand 3, Abortion case amended

• Technology report: Incremental dumps help mirrors, full screen search helps mobile visitors, and two MediaWiki releases help external sites

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Irish people

Not sure your interpretation on 'identity' is sustainable if applied across the board. Happy to discuss. RashersTierney (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your efforts on Dutch restaurants. Restaurants are a poorly developed part of wikipedia. Keep it up! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I needed that. There are still people out in the wild who have not a clue what the value and importance of a Michelin star is... Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Restaurant organisation

Category:Restaurant organisation, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about L'Auberge (restaurant)

Hello, Night of the Big Wind, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that some editors are discussing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L'Auberge (restaurant) whether the article L'Auberge (restaurant) should be in Wikipedia. I encourage you to comment there if you think the article should be kept in the encyclopedia.

The deletion discussion doesn't mean you did something wrong. In fact, other editors may have useful suggestions on how you can continue editing and improving L'Auberge (restaurant), which I encourage you to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Help Desk.

Thanks again for your contributions! ScottyBerg (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

God almighty. You really don't know anything about fine dining. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Michelin star symbols

You use different symbols for the Michelin stars than are used on Restaurant Gordon Ramsay. Are they the actual Michelin stars? I can't find an image on Google images. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 00:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

To be true, I have stolen them from a ViaMichelin site and altered them a bit. You can find the original on their websites, for instance here. In reality Michelin does not hand out stars, but "etoiles" Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I know etoile is the French word for star. BTW the Michelin icon you use looks quite a lot like the skiing certifications I got when after passing the test of the skiing school in France in the '70s. They were also called etoiles IIRC. Edit: e.g. this one. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 01:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Jammin' Java page

I am not sure why you've reacted so extremely to the Jammin' Java page, first asking for it to be deleted entirely and then sticking advertisement notices on it. When I wrote the article I based the style on other music venue pages on Wikipedia, which lists things like artists who have played there and verifiable awards from notable press. I would rather put this before other people and get a consensus on the matter, rather than this being a difference of opinion between two people. Evan-Amos (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

For your information: a speedy deletion request based on criterion "G11", means that the article is regarded promotion or an advertisement. In fact, I repeated that with the tag. At the moment, the article give not the bare facts, but promotes the place. The tag means that you have to work on that, but that it is not under the threat of removal. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Camera trap, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Tampering (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Found a source for you on L'Auberge

Although you may not like where it comes from here it is: http://kranten.kb.nl/view/article/id/ddd%3A010646760%3Ampeg21%3Ap004%3Aa0484 S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 16:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Life doesn't always go straight forward :-) Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Balkan Holidays Ltd

I still don't get why this article gets deleted because "the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article", while the article of Virgin Holidays for instance contains a lot more plain advetisement without any encyclopaedic use, whereas the deleted article of Balkan Holidays contained a number of references and pure facts. 83.244.229.226 (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Every article is judged on its own merits. Comparing with other articles is therefor useless. I don't know Balkan Holidays, nor was I involved (as far as I know) in a deletion discussion. But I do know Virgin Holidays. On the quick, it means that Virgin is far more well known then Balkan Holidays. Quite often it is the tone and style that makes an article promotional or even an advertisement. I can not help you any further. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

RE: Template:University of the Witwatersrand

Apologies for that oversight. I'm busy trying to improve coverage of the University of the Witwatersrand on Wikipedia, and in my haste I never noticed that the article Transvaal University College was only a redirect.--Life in General (Talk) 20:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem, but I had not clue how to solve it :-) Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfriendly remark

Was this really necessary? It doesn't matter how frustrated you get, try not to attack other editors. That was uncalled for. freshacconci talktalk 23:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You should have told him that before with his revenge nomination. But is is the truth. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

inre Julie Engelbrecht

I hate translating German, but am making some progress.[12] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I can understand that. My school results in German were, to put it mildly, tragic. I still held my teachter in high regard because he give my a higher mark the I had earned. But he knew that I would fail class when he gave me the mark that I had earned, while I would drop German out of the package of subject for my final exams. So he gave me a slightly higher mark, I passed classed and dropped that horrible German language. Speaking, reading and understanding is sufficient, but writing... Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As a native German, I know that she is indeed notable. You - as a nominator of the AFD - can simply withdrawn the discussion and close it on your own. Check for example how it was made at Personyze and simply close the request. (don't forget the talkpage box). Regards, mabdul 13:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Please doublecheck if I did the closure correctly. It is my first one... Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the close. With respects, I expanded slightly on your close statement to indicate it aa a non-admin close based upon a withdrawal and then added your sig and a date code. For any NAC closes that are not deletions, the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions can be followed by non-admins. Pretty much, you did okay. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI: I linked to the correct discussion. mabdul 00:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Good going. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Iprep academy

A tag has been placed on Iprep academy, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Moreover, please add more verifiable sources, not only 3rd party sources. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

Db-unpatrolled

Hi Night of the Big Wind. I notice that you've created at least three articles (IVY SHORE, Iprep academy, UK Environmental Inequalities) containing only Template:Db-unpatrolled. What's up with that? Chris857 (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It is the only way to get rid of unpatrolled articles that does not exist. The left overs from a bug that is now solved. Unfortunately, the list is not yet empty of these cases. The template is removed too soon. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I had also wondered what was going on there. I have deleted those three as WP:A3 (and the Foggy Dew (Irish Tune) article as well). Why not create them and tag them as {{db-g7}} instead? — CactusWriter ^(talk) 02:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

If you prefer the use of g7, I shall use that. I don't mind to use another trick to get these buggy things out. :-) Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, that would be preferable -- G7 requires less investigative time than any of the other CSD tags. Good luck and cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 02:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

There is another way to get rid of unpatrolled articles that don't exist, it is a "magic spell". --Mrmatiko (talk) 06:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Airedale Academy

I can't see that it was deleted - it seems to have been around (under two names) since 2007. You might have got the wrong category, but I can't see one that fits. It's not eligible under A7 as a school, and it's a 'high school' anyway. Peridon (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

See here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airedale High School Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's often a good idea to put the discussion title on the talk page when it differs from the current one - we don't usually get G4s on things four years old... I would suggest that under the current 'all high schools are notable' policy it should stay. It's not the same article as it was when re-created, even. Perhaps the patrollers then weren't so keen, but it's had a continuous edit history with no apparent attempts to delete it over that time. I've tagged it 'refimprove' as there's only one (apart from the news items links). I've just got into the deleted version - totally different - almost pure spam. Let it be, I'd say. Peridon (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nolet Het Reymerswale

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Nolet Het Reymerswale requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

• Opinion essay: Wikipedia in Academe – and vice versa

• News and notes: Research project banner ads run afoul of community

• In the news: Bell Pottinger investigation, Gardner on gender gap, and another plagiarist caught red-handed

• WikiProject report: Spanning Nine Time Zones with WikiProject Russia

• Featured content: Wehwalt gives his fifty cents; spies, ambushes, sieges, and Entombment

• Arbitration report: Betacommand 3 workshop revived, two cases set for acceptance and the ArbCom elections finish on a whimper

• Technology report: Trials and tribulations of image rotation, Article Feedback version 5, and new diff colours

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Nolet Het Reymerswale for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nolet Het Reymerswale is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nolet Het Reymerswale until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Tinton5 (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of De Echoput for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article De Echoput is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De Echoput until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Tinton5 (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Those 43 edits

I have provided an explanation here [13], you will see I was not imposing my POV despite the shite that is being said about me, I hope you will think differently. Sheodred (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Party finance in Germany

Hi, Night of the Big Wind,

thank you very much for your clean-ups in my article! I appreciate your work because I still feel to be unable to do the linking trick. Maybe I can learn it over the upcoming holiday season. As far as I can see, there is only one (although repeated) occasion where you got it wrong: "FDP" does never refer to a party in the GDR, but always to the same party in the FRG. I will try to identify the cases and correct that. All the best, Khnassmacher (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, now you confuse me. I have linked it now to the Free Democratic Party (Germany). I had almost linked it to FDP.The Liberals, but I noticed in time that this was a Swizz party. I have never looked to link it to the Free Democratic Party (GDR). So, as far as I know, FDP is linked correctly. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will check immediately. In my opinion running a separate article "Free Democratic Party (GDR)" is misleading readers, besause this party has existed for about one year during the transition period only. "Free Democratic Party (Germany)" is the Western wing that was active in West Germany since the late 1940s and is active still (they just had to replace their secretary general). The Eastern wing was "Liberal Democratic Party (GDR)" (unfortunately there is no such article), active from 1946 to 1990, when both parties (and a few others, among them "Free Democratic Party (GDR)") amalgamated under the name of the dominant party (by far the most members, voters and cash - not to mention well-known leaders like Hans-Dietrich Genscher), which was and still is "Free Democratic Party (Germany)". I hope this gets it straight somehow! Best, Khnassmacher (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

De Witte

Hi, NotBW. In the article on De Witte (restaurant) you write that the hotel was replaced by a bank building. The link that you use there is no longer valid, but I found a similar (same) article here. But I wonder if this project was completed yet (or even started). My friend Google Maps only shows the knocked-down area (http://g.co/maps/3ay9c), while a streetview shows the sign for the penthouse sale. (Both the satellite pic and the streetview pics appear to be from 2009). But the link on the for sale sign (www.dewitte-amersfoort.nl) appears to be dead. A location search on the AbnAmro website doesn't show this address as one of their locations in A'foort. --_W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 20:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, had that already checked that out with the mentioned newspaper, but did not yet correct the links. Was a bit busy with Christmas Markets Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This version better: De Witte (restaurant)? Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, great new info. I believe this (July 2011) is a picture of the new building sign. --_W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 21:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Borovik

Hi, I added some material to this page, let me know if this is enough to delete the tag. Tkuvho (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

User:ScottyBerg

• Please don't start this up again; [17]. Keep it cordial. While you two have a difference of opinion on what constitutes notability, personalizing it would be disruptive. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It is supposed te be a warning for him, as he is still following me around. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If your only evidence of that is a policy page where you are discussing the issue that originally brought you into conflict, then you don't have enough to substantiate that there is any intention to harass you. It is just as plausibly a disagreement about the notability standards for restaurants. (For instance, I have long had that page on my watchlist, and I noticed that you were both editing it. It isn't always necessary to follow somebody to wind up at the same place.) Please keep your focus on the issue while the community helps resolve the matter, and you can both move on without disruption on any side. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It is possible, but too much of a coincidence to believe. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make your case, you can do so at the proper venue. Proper venues are listed at WP:HOUNDING. You cannot do so at the talk page of the policy, as it is likely only to disrupt the conversation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

RFC

Are you serious about your proposal because if you are then you need to understand why your getting the response you are, first of all i am nobodys mate i asked you not to call me that and you did it again. I asked you to explain where people were telling you to shut up and you never just coming back with a different question. We need to move forward i will stop reacting angrily but you need to stop calling me or anyone else your mate especially after i asked you replying back saying thats my problem just made it worse. When you first came to it your proposal wasn't workable which is why i said you needed to work towards something else to change it.

Actually until this was started i very rarely stepped back into school articles as to be honest i no longer cared other than to remove vandalism and would rather spend time editing Football articles. When i started i cared but not now. So a proposal on how to better them move forward and even clear up notability would of been good but by the way this happened you lost that. Im a very passive person but when i feel bated by someone i react like it seems you do as well. At the moment it seems to be just you that wants the RFC whether that is right or wrong the community will decide once the RFC happens. Im taking the page of my watchlist as not getting involved with the discussion re whether their should be an RFC anymore if you get it then i wish you all the best with that. I will comment on the RFC and that will be that. Edinburgh Wanderer 16:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

From the first moment my proposal was under attack because it blew away the cosy, lazy approach to secondary schools. I will accept every proposal for notability of schools, as long as it guarantees that schools adhere to WP:GNG. No school is notable just because it exists.

And I severely object against your aggresive behaviour in this. My restaurant articles have nothing to do with the schools (stronger, my opinion that restaurants are always notable when carrying one or more Michelin stars, is now being challenged.). That I do not challenge other lazy approaches, is just because I can do just one thing at a time. But sooner or later, I will challenge them too. No worries. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

As I've said to you i am not going to take part in the discussion further. Im not saying my behaviour has been good far from but you have to understand we all have buttons and your use of Mate after mate has severely hit mine i apologise again for that but please when someone says stop that please stop if they carry on at you after you stop then thats their problem not yours. I wish you luck but if its agreed wider things such as a street is notable then a school where thousands attend year after year is far more notable than that. In regards to your restaurants i believe a michelin star restaurant is notable in a small way but only if backed up by non michelin sources preferably in english given that this is english wiki although to be honest that dosent matter as we can all use google translate. But the article i pointed out isn't really that i don't see the notability purely because the articles its all redlinked if they aren't notable then the list isn't. Anyway as I've said i wish you all the best but i hope you are good to your word and don't just pick on education there are far less notable articles out there. In regards to GNG Schools could be made to easily pass because it will always be argued things like ofsted reports are independent or some other similar argument. Thats the reason why AFds won't work on it because there are thousands of students interested in just one school so at an AFD or even this they will come out of the woodwork far quicker than the doubters do whether right or wrong. Your only hope now is the RFC but GNG is very limited especially when it comes to institutions thats why i feel your best hope here may of been more subtle approach really working at the notability inclusions rather than the way this has gone. In a way I'm sorry that never happened as i feel i would of helped you with that not just here as you've really made me think about other subjects Edinburgh Wanderer 17:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Describing the Dutch Michelin starred restaurants is an ongoing project. I have still a few hundred restaurants to do. (more then 300 entries, including doubles) Sorry, but that costs time. And it is now temporarely on hold while the discussion over the Michelin Guide is running. I might have to go back and find more usefull sources. When I go on again, List of Michelin starred restaurants in the Netherlands, Alliance Gastronomique Néerlandaise and Les Patrons Cuisiniers will gradually turn blue. I doubt about the chefs. Maybe I only describe those who have earned two stars and three stars, the Michelin stars celebrities and those who earned stars in more then one restaurants (as head chef). Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It certainly does take time you should take a go at a football club season article they take for ever just to do one.Edinburgh Wanderer 17:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I just do a runner... I am also working on Irish traditional musicians. Due to lack of internet sources very difficult to do. Requires plain research at the library or archive for sources, although the most simple methode would be to start interviewing people. But that is original research and most musicians did not record. The old, dying out generation I focus on, did play music for the craic and a few bob, not to get rich and famous. *sigh* Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

• News and notes: Anti-piracy act has Wikimedians on the defensive, WMF annual report released, and Indic language dynamics

• In the news: To save the wiki: strike first, then makeover?

• Discussion report: Polls, templates, and other December discussions

• WikiProject report: A dalliance with the dismal scientists of WikiProject Economics

• Featured content: Panoramas with Farwestern and a good week for featured content

• Arbitration report: The community elects eight arbitrators

• Technology report: Visual editor demo launched, hailed as "most important change to our user experience ... ever"; but elsewhere over-hasty deployments criticised

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Old Dutch

Do you have any comments on my article Old Dutch (restaurant) as it is in your field of expertise (and it did have a Michelin star for a time). I was interested in it when I biked past it a while back, it looks like it had been there long before 1940, which is impossible as the whole neighbourhood had been bombed down in 1940. Turns out it was built after the bombardment. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 17:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Aha, one down on my joblist. I take a look at it! Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, a restaurant with a documented history. Always an asset to the encyclopedia. Pity is only that I still do not know what the surname was of M.W. Mannes. I found Toon Mannes (=Antonie Mannes) but no M.W. Mannes. He should be from the second generation. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

M.W. Mannes is female, she is sitting second from left on the first row on the picture on the referenced article [18]. My guess is that she is the wife of one of the brothers Mannes. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 21:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

According to this restaurant description she was titled "mej." or 'miss". In 1967 people were old fashioned enough to make a difference between married and unmarried women. Toon was married for the second time in 1919 ([19]) so it could be his daughter. Or Wims daughter, he married in 1917 ([20]. And the lady on the picture does not look very young... Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well who knows. She could have been an unmarried niece or aunt. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 00:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ow, en je was wat dichter tegen de bron aangekropen dan ik comfortabel vind :-) Added a few extra sources for the stars, nothing more. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I discovered that it had the Michelin star by clicking on "What links here". This was a fact not known to me (it being from before my time). I did know it was a restaurant favoured by posh types. My main interest was the building which looked like it had survived the bombardment (which turned out to be not the case) so I researched its history a bit. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 21:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Overlooked KnoopjeLos. Added a head chef and changed the number of seats based on this website. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I've informed them that they got the address wrong as Old Dutch is located at Rochussenstraat 20, not at Rochussenstraat 2 as is listed on their site. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 22:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hehe they changed the address already but did not notify me let alone thank me. Of course with a regular website you can't check the history. ;) S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 01:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Landau–Lifshitz equations

Replied here on my talk page.-- F = q(E + v × B) 19:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Timeline of Portuguese history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint-Victor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Economic and Environmental Studies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Economic and Environmental Studies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic and Environmental Studies until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Youreallycan (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Derby winners

Thanks for improving Template:Epsom Derby Winners. It's my first attempt at a template, so I thought there would be some issues. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 12:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It was not too bad to solve. Only Blue Peter resisted a bit, but at a closer look it was easy enough to see which of the four "Blue Peters" was involved here. I have seen worse templates! Did you write all the articles about the horses too? In that cae: kudos from me for making the template easy to solve!! Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Why do you say [21] that Shabbaton is not a disambiguation page? It has two subjects for the same name. That it does not send us to article pages, but treats them on the page does not make any difference in this regard. Or am I perhaps not aware of some Wikipedia guideline? Debresser (talk) 14:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

See WP:DABCONCEPT. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Rather complicated, but I think I understand. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you have a look at my edit to Sabbatical year, please. Debresser (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're interested you could also see the result of my rewrite of shabbaton. Debresser (talk)

Hello, The Banner. You have new messages at Slon02's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

• Opinion essay: Openness versus quality: why we're doing it wrong, and how to fix it

• Recent research: Psychiatrists: Wikipedia better than Britannica; spell-checking Wikipedia; Wikipedians smart but fun; structured biological data

• News and notes: Fundraiser passes 2010 watermark, brief news

• WikiProject report: The Tree of Life

• Featured content: Going through the roster with Killervogel5 and a plethora of featured content

• Arbitration report: Three open cases, one set for acceptance, arbitrators formally appointed by Jimmy Wales

• Technology report: Wikimedia in Go Daddy boycott, and why you should 'Join the Swarm'

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Watch your semi-automated edits in template space

Careful: this edit broke the template. Be careful what you are changing in the templates you are visiting, as many things are handled in a certain way. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

oops, forgot to revert it. I was trying to solve the links to disambiguation pages in Ontario Highway 7. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

My bad... It was actually an issue with an update to a template that the templates in Ontario Highway 7 run off of (that's a mouthful) causing almost every link to be wrong. The issue should be fixed up now. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)