User talk:Bongomatic/Archive 6

On May 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Benjamin Edwards (stockbroker), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Irving Chais 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.

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), 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. God Emperor (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi God Emperor

If you think that the subject fails to satisfy the notability guidelines, I suggest you take it to AfD. Someone is sure to remove the speedy, and same with a {{prod}}. People who receive full-length obituaries in the NY Times have generally been found to be notable. I have never seen one deleted.

Regards, Bongomatic 11:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On May 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Steamed clams, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

thx B Victuallers (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, what does it mean it is not mentioned in "CSD category" ? How can I make it right ? --Slando (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Slando[reply]

Hi Slando

As per my message to your talk page, I don't believe that Balanced Ball meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Please see WP:N for Wikipedia's notability guidelines. As you can see, they focus on references: specifically, significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. After a search, I was unable to find any significant coverage of Balanced Ball.

If there is any such significant coverage in independent reliable sources, you may try to recreate the article, this time including citations to those sources.

Wikipedia is not about what is TRUE but about what is VERIFIABLY NOTABLE.

My comment about CSD referred to Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. There happens not to be a category for non-notable products (as there is for non-notable people or companies), so I was pointing out that if there were such a category, the article would be subject to deletion per such a category. However, another editor pointed out that since it was a website, that the A7 category applies.

Regards, Bongomatic 01:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go to User talk:Drmies. I've got something! --Sky Attacker (talk) 06:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC) IP has been blocked. --Sky Attacker (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! What an unproductive way to try to get a (possibly) valid POV reflected in the encyclopedia. Bongomatic 06:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know--you'll see I added a weasel tag to that section, which has been marked since 2007 anyway. By the way, this new kind of activity for me, and on my talk page, is all the result of the combination of roll back and my discovery of "recent changes"--it's somewhat addictive, I have to say. Later! Good luck on the DYKs, and congrats with Steamed clams! Drmies (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have actioned your delete request but User talk:Bongomatic/IC is still left. Mark that one too if you want it deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks—have done so. Appreciate the consideration and apologies in advance for not having tagged both. Bongomatic 07:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And congrats on your adminship. Bongomatic 07:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, that talk is cleaned now too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Lealman Intermediate, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! --Unionhawk ^Talk 18:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why you'd consider several blogspot blogs unreliable, but that still leaves several references I see no problem with. Could you please clarify why you don't consider any of the sources in the article as reliable or indepth. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MacGyver. I think my comments are pretty self-explanatory. WP:RS says:

Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example the Washington Post in the United States and the Times in Britain, as well as widely used conglomerates such as the Associated Press. (emphasis added)

My threshold is lower than that, but tell me which sources in particular you think would qualify as reliable. Bongomatic 01:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I appreciated your creating this article and I hope you find my additions helpful. Cohn was not always easy to do business with, but always fun to read (and write) about; I'd think this article is a natural for DYK. I wanted to apologize for not following your lead in using cite templates. I still find them cumbersome to use, I'm never quite sure which are the right ones, and I wanted to get the information into the article quickly. I keep thinking there ought to be a program that could automatically generate the complete cite just from the URL! --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expanding. I was going to add some information from the long New Yorker profile, but got tied up with something else. Yes, I think this is a great topic for an article and/or DYK. I've added the cite templates. (I don't mind doing it. for me it's like flossing–I feel clean afterwards.) But I suggest you get into the swing of it. It's really easy once you start—you only need to remember a couple of fields to do a credible job:

• title
• first and last (and first2 and last2, etc. if applicable). authorlink if the author has a Wikipedia article
• date for news / magazine, year for book
• page or pages for book or magazine (optional)
• work for news / magazine, publisher for book (can be wikilink)
• isbn for book
• agency for newswire, if applicable (can be wikilink)
• url (optional)
• accessdate (for anything with an URL)

That's it!

Regards, Bongomatic 01:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I made the reference to the book reprinting the article explicitly to the book, and made all the other references to the original article—I think that makes better sense chronologically. The reference to the reprint is to give people a chance to see free excerpts and to find the book if they like, but the chronology and significance of the reference is more meaningful with the original, I think. Bongomatic 02:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article has reached a pretty good point now, so I've taken the liberty of nominating it for DYK.[1] Regards,--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Nice working with you. Bongomatic 22:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, Bongo is very flexible about citation styles. He's always saying: "as long as the content is cited that's the important thing". He's such a wonderful editor. You just can't beat him... get it? Beat him? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It now links to both my user page and my user talk. HOORAY! --The Legendary Sky Attacker 02:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check this out and make sure it all looks okay so I can notify some of the non-cabal members who might want to participate? Feel free to add rules, commentary, formatting, or whatever. It also has an active talk page. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm not being unbelievably think, but what "this" are you referring to? Bongomatic 06:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thick I forgot to include the link User:ChildofMidnight/Baconchallenge2009. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to simplify it and come up with something for the Wikipedia:Reward board. I think there are plenty of interesting CoM-sponsored awards possible. Bongomatic 07:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could offer a reward of a bacon barnstar for creating a bacon related DYK usable in the challenge...--kelapstick (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bongomatic,

I am new to Wikipedia, and you have tagged an article I contributed with the following tag:

{{articleissues}} template deleted as categories should not refer to talk pages

The person who is the subject of the article is in my humble opinion definitely notable. He has had papers published in the Republic of Croatia (sourced in References by link to the Croatian Association of Scientific and Technical Translators where he is a member of the Management Board and to his most notable paper directly), one of his papers is being used as required reading at one of Germany's most distinguished universities (sourced by links to the German University of Tubingen and to the Department of Slavic Languages where his paper is listed among other required reading materials), he had translations published (sourced by direct link to the Union Catalog of Croatian Libraries website as well as to list of his published works) and his activism regarding the profession of translating was covered by Croatian national media (sourced by TV screenshots). I believe these are all very reliable third party sources. This person is most definitely notable in Croatia, in Europe (if a well-known University considered his paper worthy of having students study it) and should be noted in our US Wikipedia. It should be noted also that this person is ambassadoring (is there such a word?) the English language and literature in the world. Anyhow, I have gone on too long, sorry. Please, let me know if I may remove the tag you placed, and if not how or where can I now constructively argue the case of this person's notability since I believe all aspects of Wikipedia's notability requirements were met? Thank you in advance for your response. Turqoise127 (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Turquoise127

Have you read WP:PROF? If you can find reliably sourced evidence of meeting those criteria, you can remove the {{notability}} tag. The tags {{cleanup}} and {{wikify}} refer to the copyediting of the article and the internal links.

Regards, Bongomatic 16:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Bongomatic, I apologize for misunderstanding your correspondence. I looked at the article, felt it satisfied at least one criteria and deleted your tag. I was not aware I needed to present arguments on the talk page. Well, now I have presented some what I hope to be constructive arguments, please take a look and let me know if you think it is ok or not... Turqoise127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• I have amended the article to indicate more clearly that the national television coverage of the person was not just him being interviewed on site but that one tv screenshot actually mentions in the caption that he was the "inicijator" (Croatian language word meaning organizing party, organizer of initiative). I also added more comments on the talk page. Please review and advise at your discretion. Thanks.Turqoise127 (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You removed this material from Buddha Jumps Over the Wall with the edit summary, rm inappropriate material not relevant to this article. According to this article in The Independent, the material is relevant. There's another link that talks about the problematic use of abalone as well. And this one. Please restore the material. Viriditas (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you are offline. Looking at the edit history, you removed this material twice. All of it is supported by other sources naming "Buddha Jumps Over the Wall" as a source for the harvesting of shark and abalone. By removing it, you are violating NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to include it with better placement? Maybe a sentence further down in the ingredients section or in another section? It seems to kind of stick out there in the ingredients list. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, anything is possible. I would even encourage Bongomatic to write it himself, per WP:ENEMY. Viriditas (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:UNDUE. Note that not a single one of the references cited in shark finning references this dish. No doubt there is at least one reliable source about shark finning that mentions each notable shark fin dish. That does not mean that a separate section is required in the Wikipedia articles for each of those dishes. The existing "see also" link, along with the text and link I provided in the context of the ingredient list, is the appropriate level of referencing to the related but not directly pertinent topic. In each of the examples you cite—and intrinsically—references about shark finning are about shark finning, not about specific preparations. If you disagree, please initiate a discussion on the talk page (where I will add these sentiments). I will initiate a discussion of this at the talk page for all to opine at a more central location. Bongomatic 14:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The three examples I cite above mention this dish by name. Please help work towards resolution by adding the material to the article with those sources per WP:ENEMY. This does not concern "undue weight". The issue is covered by dozens if not hundreds of sources and is significant enough to spawn regulatory discussions between governments. If the presentation of the topic in the article concerns you, then I invite you to solve the problem using the sources above and composing the material yourself. What is your objection to this solution? Viriditas (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not intend to continue discussing this topic here. Please continue whatever you wish to convey on this topic at the article's talk page. Bongomatic 23:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you commented within my RfA, but I didn't see a !vote. Your feedback beyond the comment would be appreciated. Thanks! — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation. I haven't gotten involved in opining at RfA discussions—at the moment, I don't have time to do the necessary background work to come to a well-informed view. Bongomatic 01:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...fair enough, but I only have a few minutes left. I don't think it'll pass, but even a little bit of extra support here at the end would really help for next time. Even a neutral !vote would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could have been a bit clearer. ANY feedback would be great, not just positive feedback. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On May 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sam Cohn, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this subject is notable? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you tagged Kresimir Chris Kunej with article issues, I thought you might like to see this. Cheers! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In fact, I had seen that. I'm curious as to what DGG will say. What's your view? Bongomatic 22:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a bilingual English/Croatian Wikipedian to help us understand if he's really meeting our English-language Wikipedia guidelines. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to have you take one last look through the article, as I feel it is decent enough to go live today. I apreciate the inspiration, encouragement, and the terrific assist. I also think it fair to submit several DYKs for this one article:

1. Did you know that Clifton's Cafeteria is the oldest cafeteria in Los Angeles, California?
2. Did you know that Clifton's Cafeteria is the largest public cafeteria in the world?
3. Did you know that Clifford Clinton, founder of Clifton's Cafeteria created the name by combining the first half of "Clifford" and the last half of "Clinton" to produce the name "Clifton's"?
4. Did you know that the existing Clifton's Cafeteria, was once known as Clifton's Golden Rule because patrons were obliged to pay only what they felt was fair?
5. Did you know that Clifton's Cafeteria in Los Angeles, California, known originally as Clifton's Golden Rule, changed its name in 1939 to Clifton's Brookdale after a redecoration inspired by the Brookdale Lodge?
6. Did you know that Clifford Clinton founder of Clifton's Cafeteria, fed over 10,000 people for free during a 90-day period during the Great Depression?
7. Did you know that Clifton's Cafeteria, still advertsises and honors their 79-year-old motto "Dine Free Unless Delighted"?
8. Did you kbow that Clifton's Cafeteria founder Clifford Clinton made a point to never turn anyone away, even if they had no money, seeking to average only a half-cent profit per customer?
9. Did you know the original Clifton's Cafeteria location of Clifton's Pacific Seas was visited by Jack Kerouac and written of in his book On The Road?

There are many more DYKs available for this article. Additional suggestions are most welcome. I do not know how many submissions are acceptable at one time for one article, but they'd all have to be submitted with the next few days. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can submit as many as you like, but I suspect only one will be run. I like the ones about the golden rule and Jack Keruac. What about:

Did you know that Clifton's Cafeteria, mentioned in Jack Kerouac 's book On The Road, was known as Clifton's Golden Rule because patrons were asked to pay only what they felt was fair?

Bongomatic 00:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice combo. I'm gonna ask over at DYK what the policy is. Perhaps a new and different one each day for the 5 day period after going to the main? There is so much fascinating stuff about Clifton's... if there is to be only one, I wish it to be a real "grabber". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Its gone live! Thank you very much for your continued help. I added you as co-author on the DYK submission. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very generous—keep up the good work! Bongomatic 06:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The generosity of watching over my edits to insure the article was wearing its best face before going live was yours. There were some unusual glitches to the refs that happened with the WP:MOVE... ones that did not exist pre-move... but I was able to fix them quickly. I am happy to share the DYK with you. Many thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added additional material to the Lloyd Wescott article to better establish notability. Among the additions are information about his role in the foundation of the Hunterdon Medical Center, relevant articles in The New York Times, the conferral of honorary degrees and other honors. Offenbach (talk) 07:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bongo, not sure if you know but there is a banner template that says the same sort of thing as at the top of your talk page, see {{Usertalkback|you=watched|me=watched}}. Have a great weekend!--kelapstick (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks—how's the new digs? Bongomatic 00:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, I have never had a 3 car garage before...probably the nicest house I have ever lived in, now the unpacking begins...--kelapstick (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I need anyone to tell me when an editor's comment is or is not mistaken, as I think I've also established my chops thousands of edits ago. What point, exactly, are you trying to make? Deor (talk) 07:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bongo was just suggesting that, in his opinion, I am an established editor with a long edit history. Let's not escalate this any further. You can certainly revert the move. I made it based on a suggestion I agreed with in the AfD discussion, and I tried to modify the article accordingly. I still think it's a better way to deal with the subject matter, although the article needs quite a bit of work and pruning. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The plain language of my comment is pretty unambiguous, and includes no references (positive, negative, or neutral) to your credentials as a contributor. The comment was intended (explicitly) to point out that regardless of the merits of the edits you found objectionable, CoM isn't in the "chop-establishment" phase of his editing career here, and (implicitly) to suggest that the fundamentally ad hominem argument (based on an incorrect premise) was unlikely to be persuasive.

On the merits, it seems obvious that while the article is pretty bad, whatever content is worth maintaining in the encyclopedia is better to have under the new name (along with primary information about the book). I don't care whether the page is deleted or not, but if it's not, the project would be better served if the material is on a page that is fundamentally improvable rather than one unlikely to ever be encyclopedic. Bongomatic 09:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On May 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Clifton's Cafeteria, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the help! - Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out, mate. I am almost ready to give up on him, after that latest attempt to get someone else to upload an image from his flickr account although I've told him in no uncertain terms that it's not possible to use that image, and that he can't just mark it released under CC-by. That was almost comical. :\
I'm always hopeful that he'll turn around, but from what I'm getting his English is simply lacking, to a point where he's unable to understand our policies. Or my English is lacking since I apparently can't make him understand. Let's see if you have more luck. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 10:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope he decides to actually try to understand what the project is about. Lots of editors with axes to grind actually make good contributions. His is not an area I know or am likely to become more familiar with, but that's the beauty of it all (when it works). Bongomatic 14:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is it one of mine. I don't even remember where I came across him first. But phew, I was amazed to find that about every second picture on Bollywood actor articles is a clear cut copyright violation. :\ He certainly isn't alone, I'm currently trying to find out whether others are more open to education. Amalthea 15:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to find a picture of one to post on your talk page, but I couldn't. Another area it seems that needs expansion and photo additions! Surely personal care and cosmetic subjects are encyclopedic? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. Maybe no free ones, but a plethora of stock photos are available. Unfortunately I don't foresee an occasion to capture the phenomenon myself for uploading. Bongomatic 06:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:MichaelQSchmidt/The Final Inch and I have not even scratched the surface of Google News. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like more than a reasonable start—excellent. I will have limited access until next Monday, but I'll take a look then. Thanks for picking up on this. Bongomatic 16:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw a few entries above how someone informed you that I asked about notability tagging with other users regarding Kresimir Chris Kunej.

Just wish to say that I was not being a rat or tattleing (I would have sent a private e-mail and not posted publicly if that were the case), being new I wanted to attain more info and I simply tried to get advice from a most prominent looking user on the inclusionist list. And look what it got me, the gentleman basically agrees with you.

Your notability tag on my first article seemed hostile to me at first especially since I can't remove it unless you deem it ok or it goes to deletion. Having surfed around Wiki and slowly soaking up its ways, I now know that you really did do the nice thing by only tagging and not sending to delete immediately. I also see that your comments and contributions with other issues seem to be informed and just.

So, please do not be offended by my action.

Respectfully, Turqoise127 (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, but as it happens, I'm not offended in the least—then or now—and I'm delighted that you're getting into the swing of things here. Wikipedia works by consensus, so my view in a vacuum is not very important, and your soliciting alternative views is useful for everyone. DGG, who you consulted, is someone whose talk page I watch, so I saw your query immediately. I was glad you did, because his opinions are always well considered, and more often than not correct. Bongomatic 16:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It took a few weeks, but I am putting the finishing touches on User:MichaelQSchmidt/The Final Inch. You input would be most welcome. With best regard, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I was happy to share that you inspired the article. [2]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

H Bongo, I want to thank you again for supporting my Request for Adminship. As you are aware it closed unsuccessfully at (48/8/6) based on my decision to withdraw. As I had mentioned on Doc's page, I withdrew because in my opinion I need to focus on problems with my content contributions before I can proceed with expanding my responsibilities. I sincerely appreciate the support, kind words and disinfectant you provided throughout this process. Now onto that bug project I suppose now I have no excuses (notwithstanding the Samuel L. Jackson filmography list I was working on). --kelapstick (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of personal care products... [3]. Still no cucumber or mud facial mask though. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could use a nice peel. How are your pores? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably could use it. Wonder how a bacon facial mask would go down? Bongomatic 06:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your comment from the top into the discussion. I will await your initiation of an AN/I thread. Or you could just do this. Rock on!--kelapstick (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice suggestion. However, in the interest of no drama, I simply notified the nominator. Speedy keep (with its implication of bad faith) if not withdrawn. Bongomatic 23:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And speaking of deletion discussions, what do you think about this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fp.board? Bongomatic 04:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...blink...I have never seen anything like that. Nice waxing philisophical. I guess it is like an expired prod. I will take a look at that other one tomorrow. Cheers.--kelapstick (talk) 05:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even made me wonder if it had been listed correctly (I don't even know how to check, but since I did the nom with Twinkle, and admins saw it I guess it was). Bongomatic 05:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have had trouble with Twinkle completing an AfD nomination, but it is usually pretty blatant, such as not creating the deletion discussion or creating it incorrectly. But it looked done, and even was relisted and didn't have any opinions. Weird.--kelapstick (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Jerry Rosenberg now. I think I have done him justice. If we can get the AfD tag off we can nom it for DYK, I don't know what the protocol is for that though, maybe we nom it and say it should be kept...I don't know. Anyway interesting project, you may want to peruse it to make sure I am not too close to the source, but I think I did OK.--kelapstick (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks like it was withdrawn anyway.. cool.--kelapstick (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←how does ... that Jerry Rosenberg was the first inmate to earn a law degree in New York state and served longer than any other prisoner in state history ? sound, I wouldn't mind putting up a couple ALTs too, the Attica riot would be an interesting one. I haven't found any pictures, probably won't be able to either.--kelapstick (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like the hook to incorprorate that he was a jailhouse lawyer. Will work on it a little later.. There are some pictures around I think—since he's dead, fair use rationale is there. Bongomatic 22:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, that was my first stab at a hook, unfortunately fair use can't be on the main page in the DYK, although I suppose a convicted murderer's picture might not be the best idea for the main page either. When I get a minute (once I start plotting stuff in the real world), I will think of a couple other ones too. Also I have to work jailhouse lawyer into the prose as it is in the lead but not elsewhere in the article. --kelapstick (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When y'all are done with the double-murderer, let me know what you think of Fläskpannkaka. It says it's got pork in it, but I do believe it's bacon. Have we hit on another jackpot? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that Jerry Rosenberg, New York's longest-incarcerated inmate at his death, was the first to earn a law degree in a New York prison and served as a jailhouse lawyer to the leaders of the Attica prison riot?

I like it, but it's too long (209 characters). I will put up this one, that squeaks in at 199196. Adding was says that he is no longer there, if you read the article you can see that he died. If you can improve it any you can add an ALT at the page.--kelapstick (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that Jerry Rosenberg, New York's longest-incarcerated inmate, was the first to earn a law degree in a New York prison and served as a jailhouse lawyer to the leaders of the Attica prison riot?

Looks good, but you should certainly be listed as an author, not just a nominator—I don't know how to do that correctly, but it's not really optional—look at the number of characters when I stopped editing and when you did. Bongomatic 20:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how you would do it after the initial nomination, but I still get credit as nominator and that's fine with me. It was an interesting project, I was glad to be involved.--kelapstick (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Rosenberg is In the Queue. That was fast. Nice work.--kelapstick (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bongomatic. Michael Theodoulou and Bongomatic/MT are identical articles. M Theodoulou is currently an AfD. I've created redirect from Bongomatic to Theodolou - the title was misleading. --Vejvančický (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's in my userspace in case it gets deleted and I ultimately find more materials for it. So I've reverted your change. Thanks, Bongomatic 07:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Bongomatic - I just woke up and I'm still a bit disoriented. I apologize for that confusion. (I should take a cold shower :)) --Vejvančický (talk) 07:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Vejvančický is right, you seem to have accidentaly created it in mainspace. Might want to G7 it. decltype (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no, I'm sorry, thanks, and done (in order). Bongomatic 07:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :)decltype (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Type the guy's name into google books. He is widely cited. click on the ones that offer a limited preview. You should find in some of the books enough text about why his work is being cited to create an article that will survive an RFD. You could also list the inclusion of his articles in books, if any.Historicist (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see in the article's talk page and in my comment at the AfD, I have done a Google Books search. I didn't see anything beyond simple references to his articles or the content thereof. Could you point me to a specific work? Thanks. Bongomatic 21:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What made you create the page? I mean, what drew your attention to this particular reporter?Historicist (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was making an assumption that with a list of hits that long there would be copy about him, not merely an article citation. A journalist who is making an impact will be revealed by googling his name and prize or award. Or by combing down the books google hits and looking for hits that use his name in the text, something like, "Michael Theodoulou's pathbreaking article on..." If there is nothing like that, then the guy isn't notable.Historicist (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prolific work on significant topics in multiple newspapers (and other news outlets) of record on two continents over a very long career. Bongomatic 22:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's an AFD at the moment for an article I created Jonathan Rosenblatt. I created it because he was in the news because of a terrorist attack on his synagogue, and then I ran into his name in an article on an entirely different topic (about a new prayer book). Once I decided to look, it was easy to discover that he has been having an impact and create the article. If it's easy - with a name like this google searches of a notable person are always fruitful - then he's not notable.Historicist (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that WP:GHITS are a good proxy for notability. Obviously, Google and other search engines are helpful, but not determinative either way. Bongomatic 22:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I withdrew the AfD and explained why on the discussion page. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I try to keep out of coal, I am aware of the type of equipment, but not that one in particular. I will take a look for the mine and see what I can dig up, maybe tomorrow, but likely not until next week. If you have a minute can you take a look at User:Kelapstick/Samuel L. Jackson filmography, there are only 137 references to check...Actually it's more the prose at the top I am interested in, you know how it is when you try to read your own writing...Cheers. --kelapstick (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with coal? Am I about to come face-to-face with a comma-fest? Bongomatic 23:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You probably will meet up with Commafest 2009 (see the last sentence in the first paragraph). It will have a pretty good hook for DYK though I think. My wife is from Coal Country Canada, and was pretty close to Westray Mine when it blew up (perhaps a slight overstatement). So I am under strict instructions not to work at a coal mine. --kelapstick (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination is withdrawn. thanks for the instructions on how. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, though I tend to be pretty policy- / guideline-oriented so no offence would be taken either way. I really wish I could find something published about this guy. He has been reporting the Middle East for donkey's years. Maybe his bio would definitively demonstrate that he's not notable, though I suspect the opposite. Bongomatic 23:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... refactoring when I'm just trying to improve the meaning, jiggle out the sneaky insinuations so that the real intention is laid bear. Note that CoM's entry has reverted back to the inferior American spelling but maintained the clarity I added ;-) Bigger digger (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who changed the spelling back to US-style, but added a letter elsewhere to balance out the removal of "u". Bongomatic 03:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. Can't find the new letter, it's like a tricky version of Where's Wally? which I think is Where's Waldo? in the land of different spellers. And because you didn't re-refactor my other addition, does that mean you accept the point? Bigger digger (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Waldo. Bongomatic 12:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I looked at that diff but just saw the spelling correction, not a whole extra letter. It was right there in front of me and I didn't see it, so more like Where's Wally? than I'd anticipated... Bigger digger (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see an extra letter. I think you guys are nuts. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not looking hard enough, it's definitely there. Check this diff. Bigger digger (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That youtube link you provided on Drmies's talk page is okay, but you should see the literal version for Penny Lane by The Beatles.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 04:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link? Bongomatic 05:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[4] here it is.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 05:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ... I guess that's where they get the tablecloth trick from. Bongomatic 05:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On June 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jerry Rosenberg, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Giants27 09:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No Prob! I'm getting pretty good. cheers, OtisJimmyOne 16:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I responded to you where you left the note, but I thought to duplicate it here.

No, I can't undelete a copyvio. The article was listed for a week as per process to allow contributors an opportunity to address it, but unfortunately nobody did so, and the copyright infringement was foundational, going all the way back to the first edit. There was no clean version to revert to. If you'd like to create a stub, I'd be happy to give you any non-GFDL infringing elements from the page, including categories or external links. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm here, let me note that I recognize that you also contributed quite a bit to the article, and I'm sorry. If it were a simple matter of extracting his text or reverting to an older version, I would have been happy to do so. Quite often I rewrite these articles myself rather than simply deleting, but I simply don't always have time, and in this case I don't feel at all confident with the material. If you'd like a shot at revising it yourself in temporary space as the copyvio template advises, I can restore it with the copyvio template in place to give you a little more time. You'd probably be in a much better position than I am to know what was yours and what was his and to replace problematic text. Let me know; I'll watch here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate that. User:Bongomatic/BH if you please. 03:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There you go. Thanks for helping out with rewriting it. :) Please keep the template blanking the text until the copied material is all revised. This is for the protection of the project; if by chance Wikipedia were ever accused of contributory infringement, it would behoove us to be able to demonstrate that we stop publishing text as soon as somebody notes that it's a problem. Good showing of due diligence. I'll let Kelapstick know where it is, since he also expressed an interest. If you have any questions about this process, please let me know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Better, starting a new page (see User:Bongomatic/BH n) from refs only. Bongomatic 12:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever works for you. :) Let me know when you are done with the templated one, and I'll delete it. Thanks again. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, thank you all. Cheers. --kelapstick (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←Hey Bongo, I have started working Baja Hijau, so far I have moved the lead and History section over, the text is a good foundation and I have rewritten it accordingly. It shouldn't take long for me to finish if you want to look it over before MRG has her look at it (unless she is checking it on the fly). Anyway if there are any issues feel free to fix them or note them on my talk page (or here to avoid an edit conflict). Note that words such as resource and reserve (there are a few others too) are descriptions of confidence and need to use that exact language (i.e. they are not interchangeable) as those are specific descriptions based on confidence levels based on the amount and spacing of drilling in the area. Cheers. --kelapstick (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be so unhelpful, but I'm unusually busy in real life, and will be so for another couple of weeks at least. I'll try to stop by and have a look later. Happy mining! Bongomatic 17:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm content to wait until you tell me it's ready. Or either of you does. :) Would you mind dropping a heads up at my talk page? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, I think it is done, posting a note on Moonriddengir's talk page too. Cheers. --kelapstick (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at Kelapstick's page, I've moved it into mainspace. Thanks so much. It's very difficult to revise material that you don't completely grok. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bongo, thanks for the swift kick in the ass get me working on this. --kelapstick (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moodriddengirl, thank you very much for your help (and restoring the original talk page—something I hadn't thought of, but is quite useful. Bongomatic 01:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting the clean-up. DGG (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ya see? I think there's a lot more we agree on than disagree. Bongomatic 00:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of work has been invested into article Kresimir Chris Kunej, additional sources have been added and all sources have been adjusted per Wiki:Cite guidelines (I hope). Would you kindly take a look and let me know if the tags you placed on the article may be removed at this time? Sincerely, Turqoise127 (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to review this right now (but probably will over the next week). Coincidentally, I reviewed a version of the article a little over a week ago and was inclined to nominate it for deletion at AfD. I still see nothing that indicates significant coverage in independent sources. Bongomatic 15:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you peek at User:Kelapstick/Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council‎ for me? And you thought the Batu Hijau mine ruling was big...--kelapstick (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. I've made some tweaks. This sentence:

"stated that currently discharging pollutants into a lake is permitted provided there is enough material to raise the lake's floor elevation, thereby turning it into a waste disposal site"

was confusing to me. Bongomatic 04:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was confusing to me too...I think it means that if you are changing the floor elevation of a lake (in this case by fifty feet), the material qualifies as fill material regardless of the contents. But that is what I think, I am not sure so I am not adding it...It is up at DYK, what do you think about ... that following the Supreme Court's ruling on Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Coeur d'Alene Mines share prices increased by over five percent ? If you have a better one feel freee to add it as an alt. Thanks again. --kelapstick (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's about time someone fixed my spelling. I had elfs and fryed on the page today, and not a peep from my fellow editors. Some freaking wiki! What's going on? What happened to Mgml or whatever his name is/was? I haven't seen you around much either. I presume you've been partying? I could really have used your maths expertise. And things are heating up on the balsamic vinegar page... And I need a terminator for when I'm on new page patrol, but don't have the heart for AfDing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC) What do you think about Wha Kyung Byun? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC) What are the singing cats about. I don't get it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were a response to the piano-playing cat. Bongomatic 08:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recognizing their shocking error in judgment, Arbcom has lifted most of my editing restrictions so that I can get back to improving Wikipedia's article content on all subjects, including those biased by Dutch communists, America haters and radical terrorists. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And here I thought you were limited to "great kinds of edits on food, animal, science, and technology articles that you are so good at doing!" Bongomatic 02:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been let loose! Do you see the fun you've been missing? Is it a full moon or what? I hope all is well with you. Take care of yourself! And in case you haven't heard, the O'Reilly Factor had a fair and balanced report on Amsterdam (which I haven't actually seen yet) but given the hype it's probably worth getting a taste of on his website. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I got to use your old template again: [5]. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am considering going live with User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/National Fibromyalgia Association. I'm feeling pretty good about 10 hours of work. Please take a look and advise of any concerns. Thank you, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MQS. Thanks for asking. Have tightened up the language a little, and deleted the bios, which I think don't add to the article. Feel free to undo any changes you disagree with. Either way, it should be fine to go. Bongomatic 08:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wise to bring in extra eyes, as the tightening up improved the article significantly. I did choose to return just a bit about the founders and their motivations... but in a much more concise manner. Maybe it sounds goofy... but I think it serves a reader in this case by our sharing that all it takes is motivation and effort to achieve a laudable goal. Will go live in the morning. Thank you very much for your input. Much, much appreciated. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 10:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of service. Been very busy offline lately, and hard to grab the time to get involved, but this is the sort of quick edit that I'm happy to provide—it's just what a fresh pair of eyes can do for something—nothing you couldn't have done for yourself (if you happened not to look at the article for 3 days!). Keep up the good work. Bongomatic 12:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Busy offline, eh? Who said you could have a life? This busyness better be mortgage-related. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As in "ability to pay mine"? Most certainly. Bongomatic 05:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've declined this move request for now, because there are too many links to the page at this time. Once the discussion has concluded, it'll be a lot easier to move it to the correct location without breaking any links. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I've done it, but left a redirect from the "2nd nomination" page. Once the discussion is over, I'll delete the redirect.--Aervanath (talk) 03:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--makes sense. Bongomatic 05:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wanted to explain a little bit about what I am wanting to do on the subject of venture capital players and specifically, investors and entrepreneurs that are doing things to change the investment landscape - develop new products, creating new ideas etc. I penned a short piece (my first so please go easy on me) about a UK based investor - Luke Heron - that has pioneered the process of making collectables an asset class. My first effort was more detailed but as some of the information had been gleamed from not overly independent sources, so I edited it. Fairly quickly, in an effort to address all concerns, the piece has been reduced to what it is now. There are a good number of references to support the notability of the article, though clearly I am not using ones which satisfy everyone. I am really keen to develop the wider area of investors, particularly "celebrity" investors - Heron was both a presenter and guest tipster on the game show Trading Places (internet TV and cable) for quite a while and his commentary as a tipster moved share prices on UK markets on a daily basis. There are countless mentions of him in the main press...."Internet tipster Luke Heron says...etc etc", but clearly these references are no good and also irrelevant.

I am trying my best to learn the wiki ways quickly (I have been keen to contact anyone and everyone for help and advice about wiki articles and what can be done to improve them). I accept your criticisms, but the reality is this chap is well known and it unquestionably notable in his arena. If you had time to offer a little advice - as I say, I am really keen on adding further pieces on a number of investors, Scott Fletcher, Tom Winnifrith, Nigel Wray, Nick Leslau etc etc, but I need to get the format right with the first one. I think that specific investors that are pioneering a new area of investment and pitching it as a new asset class are essential candidates for inclusion in an encyclopedia, but I am obviously keen to get this right. Any help and any advice you can offer would be greatly appreciated. As you can imagine, it is a little frustrating working at something, constantly editing it to satisfy different editors who have different views on notability. As I said in the deletion thread, it all comes down to an individuals view on whether (in this instance for example) an investor developing a new asset class is worthy of inclusion. THe subject matter clearly is, but I have obviously fallen short on execution. Any help, advice and pointers would be very useful. I am trying to learn and have requested a mentor on my home page......here's hoping. Myra (MyraSendak (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Probably too busy off-wiki to be a mentor, and probably not likely to have the necessary knowledge or capabilities. But happy to give you some thoughts and/or review any drafts you may have. I always choose my topics from a starting point of demonstrated notability per the Wikipedia notability guidelines, rather than a topic that interests me and that I subsequently research. Suitability for inclusion is not based on importance or fame, but on significant coverage in reliable sources. There is a wide of views on the significance of the coverage or the variety of source required (a longstanding debate is whether someone/something who has only received coverage in local news outlets is notable).

Since you are here with an agenda (I'm not using that term pejoratively), my approach of starting with sources rather than topics may not be suitable to you, so I'm not sure how relevant my advice would be. But if you want articles that are unlikely to be nominated for deletion, make sure good references are in place before you go live.

By the way, there's no reason not to include references that are not online or (not free online). You will see numerous articles whose only references are to published books.

Regards, Bongomatic 23:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to chime in, I agree with Bongomatic's advice about sources; they don't have to be online to be acceptable. For example, I currently have the article Chinese classifier up for featured article status, and none of its references are easily available online, but no one has complained. In fact, I think a lot of people secretly believe that books are automatically 'better' references than anything on the Internet...although most people won't admit it ;) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys. Thank you for your input, it is really very helpful indeed and I am grateful. In an effort to please everyone I have made edits along the way and almost made the subject matter irrelevant. I wished to detail his efforts as pioneering as that would be the correct definition for someone leading efforts to turn certain forms of collectables into individual investment classes. There are literally dozens of investment books and other printed matter that detail him and his views/efforts, I will do some more research as you suggest and see if I can reference them. He was also a regular guest on CNBC but I cannot find any references to that so cannot include. The issue is that certain people have certain views on venture capital and it appears to be notable he needs to have more money rather than being notable for developing a new asset class. There appears to be a lot of crossed purposes in the deletion thread and trying to satisfy all is proving nigh on impossible. I really hope at the very least I am allowed to develop the article within my user space. It appears the original "deleter" does not want me to have that opportunity, which I will respect.

I will continue to add and reference the piece over the coming days ahead of decision day!! But this deletion process is very tiring and I am quickly arriving at the conclusion that it is best to listen to those that have been around longer and concentrate on other people and other issues. Once again, I am enormously grateful for your advice and input - it means a great deal indeed (82.41.203.72 (talk) 07:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Nobody can stop you from developing an article in your user space (just type http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MyraSendak/Sandbox into your browser and create whatever you want, including copying existing text). It is quite rare that an article in your user space would be deleted. Bongomatic 08:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you said to the person on CoM's page because I'm not good at catching up subtle meanings of the foreign language. Are you encouraging him to harass me further or what?--Caspian blue 04:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest filing an ANI report. Whatever Bongo is up to, I think it should be brought up for administrative review. His actions must be scrutinized for impropriety. And if we look closely enough I'm certain we can find some. Are you with me Caspian blue? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you have to look terribly closely. Bongomatic 05:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. You spell Trouble with a capital T and that rhymes with B and that's used to spell Bongomatic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've created one of those rarely found exceptions to WP:NFF. Nice job. Crystal does not apply since it has finished principal filming and is completing edit. Its coverage of a notable person through interviews of other notables give it the coverage that meets the WP:GNG... and with the (very sad) loss of Hughes, this documentary will now become one of the hottest properties of the year... and it is plain common sense that this is an instance where continued and extended coverage in RS is a certainty. I gave it a few minor tweaks and added a couple more sources. Modify if you wish. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. Be interesting to see if there's consensus that I completely misread that remedy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI title is too ambiguous to figure out who is the blocking admin. Would you mind if you clarify yourself or I modify the title a bit? (just adding the name)--Caspian blue 07:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the text that says "SarekOfVulcan blocked ChildofMidnight" is sufficiently clear. No? Bongomatic 07:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, it's a valid point. Sarek claims the other issues were part of the block but he/she just did not link to them in the initial block summary, which I take at face value but which does somewhat invalidate the original block. Nonetheless, C of M was well out of line prior to that (in terms of Arb restrictions or really Wikipedia behavior period), and in general a block for the personal attacks was not at all improper. Sarek should have explained it better, and regardless I still would not have implemented the block myself as I already told C of M. The underlying problem is confusion about the scope of the topic ban, which is still being discussed, so I think Sarek deserves a bit of slack. It would also be nice if C of M could lay off on the over-the-top finger pointing, as it was completely unnecessary and clearly was the thing that got him into trouble. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to reply. Don't disagree with you about CoM—without myself having a view on the underlying issues, there are ways of making potentially valid points that prevent even one's sympathizers from agreeing.

On the block, I think the bit of slack that was merited was exhausted by the time you pointed out the specific language excluding AN/I. Generally, except in cases of sockpuppetry and vandalism, I think that close calls should favor not blocking. But I acknowledge it was a close call (though not in my view for any of the reasons Sarek invoked, even in the ex-post justification). The only thing that to me was close was the interaction with WD. Bongomatic 23:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You both ignore the lack of warning and discussion. Blocking shouldn't be the first option, it should be the last. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mcrfobrockr. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 10:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bongo, you know sports and stuff--is Julian Burnett notable? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Ranked 46th at his position in High School?

More importantly, flag football team won again thanks to my touchdown pass and interception. Feel free to start the article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full article in The Macon Telegraph, (home of Georgia Tech), here. In my history with college/minor league players (and I have a fair bit), the answer is no unless there is significant coverage, although I think this would qualify (unless you argue against the source), not that I think we need an article on a college football player, especially when he is entering his freshman year in September.--kelapstick (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I removed the "High school" section and cited the lead.--kelapstick (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for high-jacking the page Bongo, but User:GrandMarquis2124 has made Kareem Jackson and Correy Earls (all three are college players originally from Macon, GA). Luckilly he hasn't gone right apeshit like User:Gjr rodriguez did, creating ~200 minor league articles en masse. --kelapstick (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, get a life! Stop going around and deleting pages people are creating to help and support bands such as the Black Veil Brides and Renfue. No-one appreciates what you're doing. So stay away and stop deleting pages that you're not even interested in!

Thanks for the comment. You may be well-advised to read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (note that you can find links in the polite welcome note that tedder left on your talk page), such as:

• WP:PROMOTION
• WP:NOTABILITY

You will find that providing "support" for bands is not within Wikipedia's mission, and that inclusion of a subject in Wikipedia is based on the existence of significant independent coverage of that subject in reliable sources. ^Bongo_matic 08:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but others have also contributed to those articles and they are listed as stubs so you could at least leave them there while others try to expand and contribute to them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcrfobrockr (talk • contribs) 08:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the criteria for speedy deletion. An article must assert notability (even if it doesn't demonstrate it with references) in order not to be speedily deleted. Once an article survives speedy deletion, it still can be deleted via the articles for deletion process, which is where the notability guidelines are applied. See in particular WP:BAND.

Especially because your edits have been so disruptive, these articles, should you recreate them, will come under particularly close scrutiny. So I suggest you get your reliable references that demonstrate notability (as defined here) in order before trying to recreate them.

Also, please sign your comments on talk pages—editors' or articles'—by adding four tildes (~~~~). ^Bongo_matic 08:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I do try to put in reliable references will you let the page stay? Also what do you mean by "disruptive"?Mcrfobrockr (talk) 08:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you write articles that meet the notability and verifiability policies and guidelines, (a) they will not be deleted by administrators even if they are nominated for speedy deletion (b) and they will not be deleted even if they are nominated for AfD.

I strongly recommend you read Wikipedia:Your first article. If you create your articles in your own User space (see Wikipedia:User page#Creating user subpages for how to create subpages of your user page), I will gladly review them for you before you put them into main space (i.e., the encyclopedia itself). This is the best way for new editors to make sure their articles are appropriately sourced and won't be pounced upon by new page patrollers.

As mentioned above, Wikipedia is not for promotion. However, many excellent articles are created by editors with a particular interest. So do not be discouraged—but do follows the rules, and try to cooperate.

What I meant by "disruptive" is that despite the warnings on your page and the repeated requests to read the policies and guidelines, you repeatedly recreated content that more experienced editors found inapprporiate. You didn't engage in discourse on those editors' talk pages (other than to insult me) and generally did not attempt to work within the parameters expected of Wikipedia editors.

Anyway, I hope you write these articles in a way that allows them to be maintained in Wikipedia and contribute to them and many other articles. Regards, ^Bongo_matic 12:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the insult, didn't mean to, but if I do try to recreate Renfue, it says it is protected. Can anyone do something about it? Also can anyone provide a copy of the deleted Black Veil Brides page? The first deleted version? Mcrfobrockr (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←I will askhave asked an administrator to recreate the two pages in your user space at User:Mcrfobrockr/Renfue and User:Mcrfobrockr/Black Veil Brides.

Please review some articles about similar music groups to see appropriate referencing standards. Then edit the sandbox articles and let me know when (if) you'd like me to take a look.

I don't mean to get your hopes up unrealistically. If these groups haven't received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of them, or have not met any of the criteria at WP:BAND, they will not be eligible for inclusion. ^Bongo_matic 01:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the earlier deleted version of Black Veil Brides? The one with information on the band members? Mcrfobrockr (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's all in the history of the article. You can view it here. Regards, decltype (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bongo, sorry, I had rewritten the intro and pasted it without knowing I was pulling the tags . Could you give me some tips on the kind of support I need there ? This is my first real post and I kind of need it's spelled out. I have articles written on her but I'm just putting it all together. Thanks DarlieB (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DarlieB

Some good background reading would be Wikipedia:Your first article.

Generally, you should be striving to demonstrate notability. There is a general notability guideline that requires the subject of an article be the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This means that there should be news articles about the subject, not just by the subject.

There are topic-specific notability guidelines as well. For example, writers fall under WP:AUTHOR. So if you can demonstrate that the subject meets any of the criteria enumerated there, that would also suffice.

You might also want to look at the verifiability policy and the no original research policy with respect to the sourcing guidelines there (i.e., where primary sources are appropriate and where they are not).

Happy editing, ^Bongo_matic 02:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Bongo , I will go back to read it again . So, if I am correct , it means that even though she is published in all kinds of magazines and papers , appeared on TV talk shows and radio programs , appeared in the stage play Beautiful Daughters , I need to find sources that she did write for or appear in that recognize her ? Wow, those are heavy requirements but I will try. Thank you again . DarlieB (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You refer to three different ways she may be notable:

• as an author—see WP:CREATIVE
• as a noted authority—see WP:GNG; or
• as an actor—see WP:ENTERTAINER.

Hope that's helpful. ^Bongo_matic

Gotcha, thank you so much ! I have also since found her mentioned in several books  ! I will get my format act together and post. Thank you ! DarlieB (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean about this being 'unecyclopedic' in tone. It's a short article and summarises a few of the themes within the book simply. I won't remove the tags if you feel strongly that they should remain but why don't you rewrite/edit the article in a way that you see fit? Neither I nor the other editor who has looked at the page can see anything wrong with it. Cordially  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 11:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in rewriting the article, but here's a hint about what is "encyclopedic" versus what might appear in a book review or an essay:

• The second sentence describes a continuum of Nancy Friday's research, not the book.
• The methodology for entitling the fantasies described is not an encyclopedic detail.
• The relative length of the fantasies, or their humor is not an encyclopedic detail.
• The description of a non-representative sampling specific fantasies is not encyclopedic.

On the other hand, and encyclopedic article might include items such as:

• Critical reception in popular press.
• Critical reception in scientific press (you do call this "research").
• Situation of the work within a larger body of work (no only the author's).

Wikipedia articles are not intended to be book reviews, but encyclopedic. Here are two examples of WP:GOOD articles about books:

• The Psychology of The Simpsons; and
• Yertle the Turtle and Other Stories

I doubt there's enough about this book to bring it to WP:GOOD status (that's no reason it can't be a "good article" by normal reckoning), but still, have a look at what encyclopedic treatments of books look like. ^Bongo_matic 01:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: first of all, where did you steal those useful guidelines on 'encyclopedicness'? They look good. Second, is Jay Tessmer notable? (You were involved in baseball players a while ago, weren't you?) I think he's played only a few games in the majors, but isn't that enough already? An editor prodded him, and since I am having a bit of a conflict with them, so I don't want to start messing with the article. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doctor

On encyclopedicness, I just looked at a couple of WP:GOOD articles about books. With respect to Mr Tessmer, I actually know next to nothing about baseball. From a cursory glance, it appears that he has played in MLB (Angels, Yankees), not just the farm teams. So that appears to mean he qualifies as notable under WP:ATHLETE. By my reading, the guideline doesn't distinguish between someone who plays one game or 1,000.

Hope all is well.

^Bongo_matic 06:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought you also were involved in that huge number of baseball player articles that were put up for AfD--it was all K-stick then. But thanks for your advice, and it agrees with what I though. Yes, all is well! I'm working on William March (which was delisted as a Good Article), but first we are off to Tuscaloosa for the day. Thanks for your comment, and Roll Tide! Drmies (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Beatty_(activist)

If you could take a look at the new page. So much work, had a friend from UCLA help search out some of the articles on her. If you could have a look and tell me if I'm going in the right direction that would be most helpful. Thanks ! DarlieB (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources you provided are not available to me, so it is difficult for me to assess. However, from looking at the references, and the facts they are cited to support, it is not obvious to me that there is any significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources independent of the subject. For example, mentions of the subject in the three books with ISBNs provided cited appear to be passing references at best, and in some cases, just footnotes to her book.

In my view there is no inference that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the author-specific guideline. ^Bongo_matic 01:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are not all the references as I'm waiting for some other books , so now , subjects have to have whole books written on them ? You mean the fact she is mentioned by existing and accepted authors and that means nothing ? Sorry , I'm confused . Yes thy mention her book, of course, why would that be "unacceptable considering the notable authors ? Ok , how many pages  ? What's the length of the article ? What kinds of books ? I feel you are stretching this a bit Bongo as I've been working to included more. DarlieB (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline's wording (see WP:GNG) is pretty straightforward. It requires "significant coverage" which it notes is "more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic". This is generally interpreted to mean that detailed information about the topic is covered in the source, rather than passing mention or solely reference to a work. Honestly, I don't find the language to be very difficult to comprehend. An article or chapter (or even several pages, or detailed paragraphs) about the subject are required—for example, there is nothing "about" the subject in the books that are currently referenced.

Is that clear? ^Bongo_matic 13:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually , the guideline says:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Clear ? That is actually is pretty vague Bongo , there are no guidelines for length or content , whether you considered "detailed " enough can be opinion. If I can pull two pages you can just say , no, I find it trivial . This is a 20 year activist who has massive historical roots in the trans community and , written lots of articles, appeared on TV and radio yet she is not notable ? Frustrating. DarlieB (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I thought would be clear is that the references to her in the three books whose ISBNs are given do not constitute "significant coverage". I agree that there is no bright-line test for significant coverage generally. Nonetheless, the point that I was making is that—in the sources available online—there is nothing that can be considered "significant coverage" despite the lack of a bright-line test. ^Bongo_matic 23:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated with more sources form other parties. DarlieB (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have found the source used to originally write the article. Would you mind taking a second look at the AfD and letting me know what you think? --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! And thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Congratulations for what, by the way? ^Bongo_matic 00:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting to make the first comment on my new blog. Ha ha. A HUGE honor. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even Chaucer has a blog... Drmies (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dost thou comparest I to this olde authorer of awkward wordsts and gramers? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...although I got it. I checked the Twinkle box and emptied my cache--what now? Why didn't buttons magically appear? I may just have to start typing "subst" for every warning... Drmies (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoa, never mind! Buttons and red letters are in many unexpected places! I don't know if I should feel hip or a sell-out. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can feel like a hip sell-out. ^Bongo_matic 04:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha yes. Do you know I can speedy this page with just a click? Careful now! Seriously, it makes a lot of things a lot easier, but I am a Luddite at heart. Still, thanks--I guess it had to happen at some point, and I'm glad you gave me the little push I needed. You're a kind soul, Bongo, not just a hip name. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude! You can go to an earlier diff and "restore this version"! That is really neat. OK, I'll stop cluttering up your talk page. Or should I restore it to an earlier version? I can do that reeeeal easy now... Drmies (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bongo, Please could you advise why the references and citations provided for the above article do not meet the requirements for citations and why this individual is deemed questionable as far as notability is concerned. There are references from the Times the citations from the British Medical Journal and there is also a reference to a book which included brief details of her early life. She was a reknowned author in her specialism as indicated by her cited involvement with advising the Goverment of the day during the 2nd World War and the Bibliography of her works was included which appears to me to meet the requirement for a creative person. Thanks Tmol42 (talk) 08:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tmol42

I don't know if you're familiar with the WP:Notability guidelines, but per those guidelines, suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia is based upon:

• significant coverage
• in reliable sources
• that are independent of the subject.

The Claire Loewenfeld article doesn't appear to provide any citations to sources that meet those notability requirements:

• Ein Lebensbild in Dokumenten—trivial coverage only (not "significant")
• My Travel Diary 1936 Between Two Worlds—trivial coverage only (not "significant")
• The House in the Sun—trivial coverage only (not "significant")
• "Fruit from the hedgerows - Vitamins in Rose Hips"—unable to establish with certainty, but appears to be a letter from or an article by the subject. This is not, per the guideline "independent" of the subject.
• "Vitamin C from Rose Hips - Claire Löewenfeld"—letter to editor, not, per the guideline "independent" of the subject.
• "Vitamins in Rose Hips"—unable to establish with certainty, but appears to be a letter from or an article by the subject. This is not, per the guideline "independent" of the subject.
• "Notes on Books - Claire Löewenfeld"—one paragraph blurb stating that a printed leaflet available from the subject. Not "significant coverage".
• "Books - Claire Löewenfeld"—one paragraph blurb on the occasion of subject's death. Not "significant coverage".

I was unable to find any other sources that provided significant independent coverage in Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. But if you do, please add them to the article. ^Bongo_matic 14:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HI Bongo, Just to say thanks for the feedback I am taking action to follow up.Tmol42 (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I get what your saying Bongo. I guess I'm just in some kind of a twister of thoughts right now because myslef, like you, and Drmies and others who interact with CoM, can see that this is not the best time for CoM... I'll admit, maybe I don't quite know now why I started that particular thread on Drmies' talk page, or really what I've been achieving by commenting in the thick of the heat of CoM's situation at all (although I do know that Wikidrama, in the past, has made editors do things they can't explain, and perhaps I'm unintentionally allowing myself to become trapped in it all). I know of Drmies strong connection with CoM and while I know he can find things out for himself, as other editors can, I just wanted to confirm the "know-what" on such a critical scanario like this one.

What I do know, is that I've known many editors who have gone down the tubes because one minute everything is all right and then next minute, things change. Allstarecho is a good recent example. He had created a great reputation of his character on Wikipedia, and then, things changed, and he spun out of control. His behavoir began to wear thin on other editors of the community and now...he's gone!

I've always been confident that CoM can stand up for himself and what he believes in, and that he won't blow himself over like many before him have done, but I've seen that it need only take a few hours worth of discussion to turn, even a perfectly good standing editor into retirement and I definitley do not wish that to happen to CoM at all...(or worse).

Pardon me if my comments are not making any sense. In short, Wikipedia can really play at editor's emotions, like it has done to CoM very strongly as of late, and, as another editor who has too much will to keep Wikipedia as a good community of editors and who has enjoyed working alongside CoM, I've been watching this situation closely, as I told him, in the hope that things would "mould over" nicely for him, so he can get back to what he does best.

Who knows? Maybe I'm just losing myself here, maybe I've gone insanely mad, tied up in emotions, and being "counter-productive" in my comments as you say. But it's just hard for me to think straight right now when CoM has been driven to compare his treatment on here to the Holocaust. I hold CoM to very high regard on here, and to see a claim from such a good editor that the encyclopedia is patrolled by "stormtroopers" and that enjoyment for editors is tarnished by editors trying to push people away is saddening for me. CoM, and all other good editors, should be able to enjoy contributing to Wikipedia and not feel like they will be abused somewhat when they do. Just think of how many editors have left the project because of situations that start just like this one. If CoM wishes to contribute to the encyclopedia, he should be allowed to. In the end, we are all here for one reason. To help build an encyclopedia and all editors should feel good about doing it and not have to worry about all the Wikidrama that drives editors crazy.

One could only imagine what CoM and other editors in his position have been forced through and I just wish, for his sake, for Wikipedia's sake, and the sake of other editors that all these heated dramas on the website can end so that all of us can edit Wikipedia in peace and civility.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 09:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, what am I really trying to achieve by my comments on Drmies' talk page in this situation? Well, probably nothing much really but I guess that I was just hoping that by some crazy coincedence, making Drmies a comeplete "know what" on the situation might do some good into stopping CoM's troubles. Obviously, my sanity has been warped right now, I know that. But I just can't believe what CoM puts up with on here.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 10:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I agree with the thrust of your comments about how Wikipedia interactions create real-life emotional and behavioral responses from editors. My own policy (not suggesting that the best one, or that I follow it sufficiently) is to try to depersonalize on-Wikipedia events as much as possible, especially when things get rough (it's always good to accept the emotional content when it's positive!).

People's motivations for being here differ widely, and since we need all the capable volunteers we can get, it's best (ceteris paribus) to try to avoid actions that drive productive editors away. In this case, it is my current determination that there is nothing to be gained for anyone or the community by my drawing additional attention to the incident (or, for that matter, offering my views in any forum, public or private). ^Bongo_matic 10:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be User:XXDecemberXx. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. Look at this {{spa}}. ^Bongo_matic 23:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BM, could you look at Claire Loewenfeld again, please, and either remove the tag or file an AfD? I'm reluctant to remove it myself again. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following it and still have not seen anything that suggests the subject meets GNG, PROF, or CREATIVE. Before I take it to AfD, could you give me the outline of your expected "Keep" comment (so I can either be persuaded to remove the tag, or give a better nomination ;)? ^Bongo_matic 02:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue something along the lines of Lowenfeld being a borderline notable figure, in terms of what's available on the Internet, but possibly not so borderline for someone with access to the right sources; that pre-Internet borderline figures are much harder to source, obviously, and the fact that we've managed to find this number of sources online is itself indicative that there are many more out there; that her being a very early member of the Soil Association may alone make her notable (and I have a request in at the Soil Association for more information); her involvement in the consumption of rose hips during and after the war might similarly be enough to establish notability, as this was a big issue in the UK. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply.

I disagree that the existence of online sources indicates notability could be established if more sources were available. If you were to look at a random newspaper from today, the majority of people mentioned in it, or writing a letter to the editor in it would not be notable. If you looked at the preface of a random book, the people acknowledged in it would not have any likelihood of being notable.

If you'll indulge an off-topic detour (I will get back to the topic at hand), I will recall that editor opined—terribly wrongly—that the mere existence of records of someone eons after his or her death is evidence of notability. It just isn't so—there are census data, church records of births and deaths, tax rolls, property records etc. dating back since the beginning of recorded history.

Back to Lowenfeld, the amount of source material available online is coming up considerably. And we're not talking about ancient history by any means. If you were to argue that someone who contributed numerous full-length articles to BMJ (but wasn't written about) in the same time period was notable, I would still argue that PROF would need to be established.

So reasonable people (and unreasonable ones too) may differ. I hope you don't think I've rushed to judgement on this. ^Bongo_matic 02:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She seems quite notable as a natural foods author and "expert". ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more helpful if you could connect the dots from the amount of coverage or other facts to the notability guidelines. ^Bongo_matic 03:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think her books were self-published? I have a strong suspicion they were reviewed and that she received substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. :) Are you perhaps biased against advocates of rose hip eating? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←Et tu, Liber Noctis? I have been accused of being anti rose-hip before. It's not true! It's not true! I am a proponent of rose hip, hibiscus (especially Jamaica), acerola, and many other vitamin C-containing substances. ^Bongo_matic 05:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean to be over-snappy on my comment there, but it's a key general point, & I have to take examples where I find them.. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the snappiness, but the inaccuracy and presumption. I did a considerable amount of WP:BEFORE, as the talk page and discussions with SlimVirgin can demonstrate easily. I addressed the existence of one of the sources that Edison pointed out in my nomination, and the content of the other one. The reference to Contemporary Authors was not in the article at the time of the nomination.

That you ridicule my reasoning is not a big deal—we are opponents, I guess, and you aim to convince those who come to the AfD discussion. But I am pretty disappointed by your running roughshod over the facts of the nomination, and the inadequacy of your so-called apology. If "taking examples where you find them" means dishonesty, I don't know why you care about an encyclopedia in the first place.

^Bongo_matic 23:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are not opponents. We disagree sometimes, which is another matter. There are people I disagree with a good deal more frequently than you--and in most cases we manage to stay on good term--it was because I hope to that I wrote you this note in the first place. I was not primarily aiming at convincing people at the afd--if that were all, i would have said a good deal less --I was aiming at convincing people about the need to use non-Google sources. If that really was your meaning or implication, I certainly disagree very strongly on this. I do not ridicule your reasoning -- I find the tendency it represents harmful, though not your fault in any direct way--it's dangerous because it's widespread. I admit I've been using variations of "Wikipedia the encyclopedia that .... " at various places--i find them the clearest way to summarize, and I like to think of them as clever, not as insults--and I have used this very one before, as the issue frequently arises. I apologize for not having checked when the C.A. reference went in. I did you an injustice there. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear Bongomatic,

You seem to be utterly unyielding in your opinion regarding notability of article Kresimir Chris Kunej in spite of all appeals, updates and work invested in it. I am aware you are being nice about the issue in simply tagging and not nominating for AfD, and I have already noted that I admire your contributions from seeing your history. Be that as it may, you seem to be the only editor so far to have a problem with this article. I am not sure if for some reason you simply dislike the mug of the person featured in the article, if you are somewhat biased since it is a different region of the world that article encompasses, if the issue of profession regulation simply irks you, or if this topic is something you do not care about, but let me attempt to relay to you the wider notability of the subject at hand. Translations are of great importance in the European Union and states that are in process of joining. If legal framework documents are not translated properly, there could be large issues. Not to mention translations for the war tribunals and alike. If there are no standards in particular countries that govern who it is that does the translations, there are no assurances it will be done right. There were assertions that 9/11 may have been prevented if the CIA had an adequate number of translators. Micro-cosmically, what if you write a great work of art and a translator in France butchers your source text? Republic of Croatia is not the only place where this is the case, I am aware of numerous businesses here in the US where refugees with no linguistic training translate legal documents without any sort of regulation. This is an issue that will in time show itself to be quite a topic in the world of academia. The person featured in the article is the first to really point this out and take the issue on at a larger national scale. It was a significant event in Croatia and still is. I believe there has been enough coverage and works in significant libraries to pass WP:GNG -the sources are there- and if you disagreed, many segments of WP:PROF are covered. It’s just that you seem to be the only persistent disagreeing party. Another experienced editor simply removed your tag just recently when I asked for advice (I did not know they would remove the tag), and you promptly put the tag back on. I read about recent more stringent criteria on Wiki regarding biographies of living persons, but I do not think this fits that bill. In conclusion, I would like to kindly request that you remove the notability tag from the article in lieu of the above explanation, I would like to avoid placement in AfD -one never knows which way the opinions go there.Turqoise127 (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Kresimir Chris Kunej, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kresimir Chris Kunej. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me what's next for the page i created for Bravosolution? i've added several independent third party references -- of the 8 references, 2 are blog or press release, but the rest were independently written by respected leaders in the Supply management industry. You also linked to several textbooks that mention Bravosolution in case studies and such, although i feel that linking those would trigger an advertising flag, would you prefer to see those added? Do you have to remove the notability tag? or can someone else do it? I assume it's frowned on for me to take it off myself. Elizabethflynn (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can do it, but if the problems aren't addressed, the tag can be put back on. My read of the non-password-protected articles cited is that they appear to be thinly rehashed versions of press releases or company-placed stories, and one only mentions it in passing. There are lots of software companies and products that get bona fide significant third-party coverage. Nothing that I've seen leads me to believe this is such a company. ^Bongo_matic 16:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I placed an A7 tag on Ryan McKee, just to see what happens. I looked at these stubs again: unless one thinks practice players are notable, no claim to notability is made. The original author doesn't seem to care anymore: [6]. Later! Drmies (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy declined...--kelapstick (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting to consider a request for comment regarding creation of articles about people who do not meet WP:ATHLETE but meet the GNG based on local sources. Local sources tend to do a lot of sports coverage, so it is conceivable that every college player that ever played have an article if one were to follow the "letter of the law". My opinion is that in order for a player to have a page they should meet both criteria, not just the GNG (provided they are only "known" for being a football/baseball player, if they are known for something else my criteria would not apply). This is a sort of similar situation as the baseball issue I went through earlier in the year.--kelapstick (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Local coverage is one thing, but I don't want Wikipedia turning into a the kind of thing where every person who gets two articles in the local rag is notable. We don't allow that for politicians (unless they win a primary or something) or for musicians (unless they have a couple of albums out, or singles in the charts), so why should we do this for athletes? Besides, it wouldn't just be college athletes: what about high school sports? and their practice squads? Drmies (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this has do with ATH in particular. To me (as you can see in the long back-and-forth here, this has to do with the GNG generally, and what constitutes "independent coverage" for the purposes of N (as opposed to for purposes of V). As argued by numerous editors on numerous occasions, significant coverage in sources may not be the result of the editorial judgement upon which GNG is intended to piggyback in the inference of notability. ^Bongo_matic 01:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the template: I got to use it again! Drmies (talk) 02:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Check out the follow-up, both on the user's talk page and on mine. Your template, man, it rocks! Drmies (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny not funny. Thanks for the props. By the way, have you seen this? ^Bongo_matic 07:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was amazing. The judokas with the mustaches though...kind of reminiscent of this... Drmies (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, outside scenes for this were shot in the most beautiful city in the world. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here all this time I thought you were a happily (in the Rick Warren sense) married man. The Bearforce 1 entry is a charming treatment of the topic. The most beautiful city in the world—you mean Bruges, that Dutch colony/annex? ^Bongo_matic 21:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am! Rick Warren-approved! Bruges--pshaw. Amsterdam! Oh, I sent that LEGO clip to my brother, who got a real kick out of it, and then he went on to tell me about his new LEGO toy, some gigantic piece of machinery that takes up half a room. Great fun! Bearforce 1 does need some work, though. I'll get on it one day. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Isn't Bruges "The Other Canal City"? Also, I seem to recall that LEGO actually comes from a far-flung Dutch province? ^Bongo_matic 01:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, tired as well, of a couple of things here. Hang in there! Before you know it, it's 11:20 on Saturday and you can watch the Tide roll! (OK, I don't know if that's much help to you.) I feel for Sandstein, by the way. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, thanks for posting your holiday videos. It looks like you had a lot of fun with your friends. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, CoM, I haven't had any comments regarding my vacation photos, after all that heckling. --kelapstick (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What photos? I was going to say those videos were of your trip, but it didn't look much like Hawaii and the dancers looked like they'd been eating a lot of bacon... ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are on your page under Ninja Miners. --kelapstick (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something that has been puzzling me. Is it Bongo-matic or Bong-o-matic. The latter sounds more fun.--kelapstick (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Choose your poison! ^Bongo_matic 13:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've attempted to address your criticisms somewhat by providing some more third parties, it took me a while to find an angle I figured you'd be happy with, but I've put a bunch of proofs of radio appearances on different stations and expanded the section on his band. I hope these changes satisfy your issues with the page, if you check my discussion with Dan Arndt (probably the most prolific contributor for Australian Hip Hop I have seen so far) you'll see he agrees with me that there's simply not that much third party media coverage for the genre, which makes my job harder. Hopefully this will be the first of a bunch of articles I contribute to in a big way in the genre so I'd appreciate your input on whether or not you think the independent radio thing helps satisfy WP:Music, as this is likely to be a tact I adopt with the other articles as well. Cheers Stevezimmy (talk) 12:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve

First, I want to compliment you on actually caring about the guidelines. Many new editors come here with an agenda and don't care about policies, guidelines, or the opinions of editors whose opinions differ from theirs. (And by the way, an "agenda" is not meant as a pejorative—many, many prolific contributors of good content come here for a reason other than an abstract desire to build an encyclopedia).

On the merits of this, perhaps we can agree to disagree. Your point (and this is frequently a point made by editors who have an interest in non-mainstream topics) that reliable sourcing simply isn't available leads you and me to different conclusions: you believe that means exceptions are warranted, I believe that makes the topics fundamentally unencyclopedic, at least for now.

They say "the winners write history" to mean—in a bad way—that those who control policy and media determine what wisdom is received. Encyclopedias are like that too (though, one hopes, in a less pernicious manner). The notability and verifiability criteria are here so that we don't take editors' word for it on matters of fact or notability. That logically implies that topics that are yet to be given significant coverage—even ones that do ultimately receive that coverage aren't suited for inclusion now.

Editors come down on all sides of the notability question, and my opinion at AfD discussions frequently does not carry the day—so by all means, improve your articles, and make your case at AfDs (though don't WP:BLUDGEON—see WP:Articles for deletion/Kresimir Chris Kunej for what to avoid).

Happy editing!

^Bongo_matic 13:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which: hear hear! A "crew" is so much sexier than a "cabal." Drmies (talk) 04:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also like the "crew thing. Very hip. WHAT UP????? Bacon crew?ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree cabal is more mysterious. --kelapstick (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the type of dispute that splits groups up. Oh well. It was good while it lasted. I enjoyed knowing you guys. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I came across as a bit abrupt at the start, it was very frustrating working on an article and having it put up for deletion straight away, I am still learning the ropes and made a few assumptions (a lot of new users seem to make) that when a group of people who know each other come in and start voting to delete a page there are seperate agendas at play, I didn't really understand the way user pages and notifications worked properly, now I get it because I've contributed in small ways to a lot of different articles I found through peoples user pages.Stevezimmy (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Bongomatic,

On the AfD for Phatchance everyone is mentioning userfication. I just wanted to clarify before I post there, does this mean to place the article on Stevezimmy's user page as a subpage and allow it to be worked on there? Thanks! DreamHaze (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it does. ^Bongo_matic 00:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! DreamHaze (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is this messing around with colors, Bongo? Topaz? Turquoise? I will keep the template as a badge of honor. Later! Drmies (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Topaz is a semiprecious stone as is turquoise I think. Hearkening back to recent {{Notability}} template placements. Did you see the links in Topaz's templates? ^Bongo_matic 05:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you point it out, yes. Well, really funny, Bongo--and today I was just thinking that nothing I've ever made was prodded or AfDed, I think. I started my wiki career (outside of article writing) at AfD, so having a bunch of references has always been a priority of mine--and I cannot, for the life of me, imagine why editors would want to create content without these references to begin with. Or sometimes without content! See, for instance, this one--and that's the editor's eighth edit. Drmies (talk) 05:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of Michael Theodoulou (by the way, look at my approach to "my articles" being taken to AfD for my views on civility), I don't think I've ever started an article without reasonable referencing. And the bulk of my work starts from the reference, not the topic. But lots of people with vested interests have started good and useful articles without a care in the world for WP:V or WP:N (and there are tons of unreferenced technical articles that are correct and useful—so WTF am I complaining about?). Different horses for different strokes, as they say. ^Bongo_matic 05:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c: it gets better) Aaaaha...I just went from the infamous Deletion Review (all words accounted for?) to talk page to a notability tag on Oscar Tompkins! A nice example of Wikistalking, don't you think? Thanks for looking out, not for me, but for the project.

Update: I just had some fun looking at other tags placed by that editor. I think they better stop before they go too far. Drmies (talk) 05:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I value your efforts to make Wikipedia a better place, however your comments on my article regarding CHINICT are unfounded. Indeed, the article is not written as an advertisement. The style and storyline are clear and in line with Wikipedia guidelines as well as other articles written on similar topics. The references, provided in quantity and quality, are both verifiable and in perfect compliance with what is expected on Wikipedia (even though you may not speak Chinese, many trustworthy and verifiable references are also provided in English).The notability of the topic of the article is clearly established considering the amount and quality of references, sources, external and internal links mentioned, the common knowledge of CHINICT any person interested in China tech entrepreneurship and innovation has already, and the results you may be able to obtain from other sources (such as Google for example). Also, you mention potential conflict of interest when there is no basis for that. As a conclusion, if you pay close attention to articles on Wikipedia whose topic is a prominent conference dealing with a societal and business phenomenon such as CHINICT, you will see that my article brings similar encyclopedic value - to say the least. Please, let me know in case any specific element still needs to be clarified. Thanks. Franckn55 (talk) 08:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Making this article legible is work for someone with a stronger gut than I Stevezimmy (talk) 11:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right on. I wish I had my "namedropping" template up and running. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the recent history: I did have a go at improving the article, but some basic problems I could not solve (problems of grammar and semantics). The 'owner' of the article went right ahead and reversed everything, which I have in turn reversed, with explanations. What's the next step? I am not even convinced this thing (is it an event? is it a company?) is notable in the first place. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded at the ANI thread. My worry is that it might show a false consensus for actions... much as does use of a SPA or SOCK. Assuming good faith that such was not the intent, the use of multiple sigs is not helpful nor neccessary, and could result in just such an appearance of false consensus. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't commenting on whether it was helpful or necessary, just whether it was actual sockpuppetry. ^Bongo_matic 01:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should I unstrike? As it is the same person, and not a sock or spa, there is still the sense of false consensus. I've never come accross this before. Is such common? And does it sometimes lead to the same sense of consensus as created and intended by socks or spas? I pretty much thought that if one had a registered account, then it is THAT account (and account sig) that should be the one seen as editing. Definitely one for the books. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its use seems inconsistent with policy at WP:Username. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the concern, there's a different place to report it. A review of the user's posts to talk / Wikipedia pages indicates that the signature was in use on more than one occasion, so it doesn't appear to be an attempt to fool people with multiple sigs. It seems to me to be an irrelevant distraction from the main issues, which are serious. But ultimately I don't really have a strong opinion other than that it should be clear that no sockpuppetry has been identified. ^Bongo_matic 01:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, no SOCKpuppetry or SPAwork is evident. However, I unstruck at the ANI as any hint of a creation of false consensus is relevent to the overall behavior patterns being addressed by Joe Chill inre the actions of the editor in question. Where is the better place to follow up on this? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←WP:UAA ^Bongo_matic 02:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I may be wrong on that. Part of the username policy appears to apply to sigs, but not all of it. The signature policy appears to have been enforced in several different ways, but not obviously including UAA. I will post a query later on. ^Bongo_matic 03:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As someone not commenting on the editor at the ANI, you are more impartal. You can see though my own cause for concern. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it; see Talk:Low rock. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know about it. I just don't use it. But I see your point. Cheers. It is good to hear from you Bongo. By the way, now that I am here, did you know User:-5- well?--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 07:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, never came across -5-. Seems like a reasonable reason to take a break, although cutting back one's involvement can also be effective. Cheers to you! ^Bongo_matic 07:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are tagging my new attempt at an article. I barely started yesterday. Astonishing. Are you allowed to be doing this? What is your problem? Turqoise127 (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If an article isn't ready for mainspace then you should create it in your sandbox and move it into mainspace when it is adequately referenced. Otherwise, you should expect maintenance tags to be placed on it. ^Bongo_matic 20:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider User:Drmies/sandbox1 and its history, for instance. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turqoise127 (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coming a day or two late, but it has been three years since your first edit to Wikipedia on October 4 2006. Congratulations!--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 05:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I had no idea. Three years old is a great age! ^Bongo_matic 05:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you convert Wiki years to human that works out to 114 years. You should check with Jimbo to see if you qualify for automatic adminship as a founder. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you know? I'm a sock Jimbo created when he was blocked by Sandstein. ^Bongo_matic 09:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny. See you at WP:AE... Admins who sock prefer the "alternate account" terminology. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Que pasa? Just started 72 Things Younger Than John McCain, but should probably get back to work....See any expansion potential for a DYK?--kelapstick (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• More importantly, is this article ready for mainspace User:Guitarherochristopher/Red Thunder? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly...--kelapstick (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to combine them? I like the use of capital "He" in the middle of a sentence. Red Thunder must be able to create thunder. I will look at the McCain article, but please note that I am topic banned from cheese-related articles and since the brief article already mentions "nachos" I may be unable to assist. ^Bongo_matic 23:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If requred I can replace nachos with two-ply toilet paper. How often does one get to say that? Cheers.--kelapstick (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not often! By the way, none of my so-called cabal commented on my excellent new userbox (other than implicitly by hurtfully not removing the "not funny" warning on my user page). ^Bongo_matic

I didn't even notice it, must have been memorized by the flashing blue light at the top.....That's awesome, personally I alternate between keep and delete regardless of the merit of the discussion, you know, to mix it up a bit. Actually after the comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pork client, I had to add this one to make sure that everyone was on the same page.--kelapstick (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I noticed it and immediately concluded that most editors wouldn't get the joke and, taking it seriously, would get pissed. And that many of those who did get it would feel that you're making fun of their rescue cabal, so they would also get pissed. Seeing a perfect balance of affront and plenty of irony, I didn't want to say anything that might encourage you to get rid of it. :) Subtle humor doesn't work well here. But math jokes are okay. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it to Kelapstick to choose a userbox with bad grammar in it. Tsk tsk tsk. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like jokes, but satire and irony tend not to work well here (unfortunately--they're the 2 debating tactics I think I'm best at, so I am much hampered by never being able to use them--Well, hardly ever) I suggest you reconsider. I have in mind CFD T2. DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G7 better than a slap on wrist. Done. ^Bongo_matic 22:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell the difference. What did you change? How was the alternate one different from the real one. And moreover, how is a template that makes a statement of that sort appropriate in the first place when used without irony? It seems like cabalism run amok to me. Voting for a squadron. Bacon Squadron might be okay though... ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved it to user space. ^Bongo_matic 00:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a real template? Is there a variation that's real? I'm so confused! ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Article Rescue Squadron is a real template. User:Bongomatic/Alternate Rescue Squadron describes the behavior of many squadron members. We both worked (well, I made a tiny edit and you worked) on honey today. ^Bongo_matic 08:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've got it now. :) Thanks for the clarification. Sometimes "reality" on Wiki is stranger than fiction, so one can never be sure. For all I knew you became a radical inclusionist! Look what happened to Cunard. He's deleting Gelaterias now for heavens sake! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged this as "unreferenced" (fair enough) but also as "disputed". What's the beef? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the term is more applicable for internal than external combustion engines. The frequency of use for that meaning may be higher, but that could just be a reflection of the fact that there are more internal combustion engines in use. Prove me wrong! Please! ^Bongo_matic 01:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External combustion (i.e. steam) engines in locomotives drive the wheels directly, so there's no need to distinguish between "prime mover" and "transmission". Andy Dingley (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so (I'm not putting myself out as an expert), but it's contradicted by a cited use to the contrary in Stirling engine. ^Bongo_matic 01:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St*l*ng eng*n*s? Don't be disgusting!

There's no contradiction there. Diesel engines are prime movers. Stirling engines are prime moves. Steam engines are prime movers too. In common usage, the only time the term is really needed (i.e. to distinguish between "that part of the locomotive that is the prime mover" vs. "that part of the locomotive other than the prime mover") is when it's a mechanism like a Diesel-electric locomotive where the transmission is as complex as the prime mover is. No doubt Stirling-powered locomotives would then find themselves in a similar situation. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're an expert—why don't you improve the article and source it? You can remove whatever tags you wish without fear of my reinserting them. ^Bongo_matic 02:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bongo, did you actually read the "history page before adding your tags to the FICS' page? I admit that originally I posted that page, and then, when it was removed, I completely re-wrote it, providing muchmoer data and references, and re-posted it. It was STILL removed,mostly because I wrote it... when I posted a whole argument that your own rules make an Organization which is International in scope and has secondary sources to prove that "notable", then one of YOUR colleagues, "DigitalC" took it upon himself to once again totally redo the page. He won a "bronze star" for that thorough job, and now you are calling his objectivity also into question with the COI tag? Moreover, I suspect you did no read the history, or actually check YOUR facts before you tagged this page. I respectfully request that you review your actions as they call DigitalC's work into question.

Drsjpdc (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bongo,

• There are currently 16 references for the article International Federation of Sports Chiropractic. How many were there before it was deleted? Notability has been established. Non-passing mentions in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, Chiropractic & Osteopathy, as well as in the book "Principles and Practices of Chiropractic"" by Dr. Scott Haldeman Ph.D, D.C., M.D.
• The article is substantially different than when it last went through AfD. How do I know this? Because I re-wrote the article from scratch, starting with the sources. You can see some of the effort at User:DigitalC/sandbox/fix/. As such, it is not suitable for section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
• You have nothing to base your COI allegations on - I rewrote this article after a {{Helpme}} request that was posted on Drsjpdc's talk page while I was in the IRC #wikipedia-en-help channel - you can see my response to Drsjpdc on his talk page.

In the future, please be more responsible with your use of speedy deletion tags, as well as with COI allegations. DigitalC (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see comments on the article's talk page. ^Bongo_matic 01:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bongo,

• There are more references coming for the various tenants in this landmark project, of the IOC and the City of Lausanne. The fact that this is an IOC/Lausanne joint venture to bring all the World's International sport governing bodies together should itself make this notable.
• You have nothing upon which to base your COI allegations, as I hereby attest that I have never been an officer, owner, or investor in this facility (I only wish), and have no personal interest in its publication, except that it's so obviously deserving of the effort I took to write the page. I am simply an individual with intimate knowledge of the "olympic family", its structure and founding.
• as to "notability". I suggest you check the special rules of notability governing organizations; i.e, that they are automatically "notable" if they are International in scope, and there are secondary references backing that up. BOTH of those criteria are met herein.

I second DigitalC's note that "In the future, please be more responsible with your use of speedy deletion tags, as well as with COI allegations". Drsjpdc (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bongo, With all due respect...

• There are significantly more references now on this page then when I first posted it. Have you checked them?
• You have absolutely nothing upon which to base your COI allegations, as I hereby attest that I have never been an officer, owner, or investor in this organization, and have no personal interest in its publication, except that it's so obviously deserving of the effort I took to write the page. I am simply an individual with intimate knowledge of the Chiropractic profession, its organizations, structure and founding.
• as to "notability". I suggest you check the special rules of notability governing organizations WP:ORG ; i.e, that they are automatically "notable" if they are International in scope, and there are secondary references backing that up. BOTH of those criteria are ALSO met herein.

I now third DigitalC's note that "In the future, please be more responsible with your use of speedy deletion tags, as well as with COI allegations". Drsjpdc (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]