User talk:Bongomatic/Archive 8

Removal of links

I have put a comment beneath and would be grateful if you could explain your actions and what was considered wrong with links to complete comic books that are in the public domain. This has taken me many months of work!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by EManac (talk • contribs) 10:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, the Dutch way! All the best to you, Bongo. Drmies (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the oliebollen—think I'm going to celebrate with some fries, beer, and mussels in honor of a long-lost province of yours! Best to you & your family in the new year. ^Bongo_matic 08:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, LOST--that hurts, man! But mussels would be great, yes. Enjoy! Drmies (talk) 08:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bongomatic! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Lisa Porter - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Michael Theodoulou - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DASHBot

Please note that Lisa Porter is referenced, just not using inline references. External links that verify the content are included in the article. Your master may wish to change your warning message to use language that considers this possibility. Michael Theodoulou has (surprisingly) survived an AfD for being unreferenced and potentially non-notable. Don't know how this could be contemplated by a 'bot.

Regards, ^Bongo_matic 23:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I agree with you the template is a bit harsh. I changed it to say "is tagged as an Unreferened..." that way it is less * accusatory*. Thanks, 23:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim1357 (talk • contribs)

Great and by the way, on my front, totally no worries or offense taken—I'm anything but a newbie and certainly appreciate the efforts of all of you writers of useful 'bots. ^Bongo_matic 23:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Making unreferenced BLPs and now you're spamming supposed PEZ innovators? I'm shocked! ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks COM. ^Bongo_matic 06:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), 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. Difu Wu (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per your interest in feminine etiquette, please see Lucie Clayton Charm Academy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thanks! ^Bongo_matic 04:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a response. You requested I ask if I don't understand. What I don't understand is what powerful urge you have to delete referenced articles. It took me two years to find out who this guy was and you dismiss the article? Not notable, or simply not identified? Do you know this guy? Do you listen to Los Angeles radio? Or radio in the other markets he is heard in? If you did, maybe you'd want to know who he is too. I suspect you are meddling in a subject you do not know, a bad thing to do on WP.Trackinfo (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it took you two years to identify who he was, that's pretty good evidence that he hasn't been extensively noted. "Notable" doesn't mean "of interest to one editor", or even "of interest to lots of people". Rather, it means "having received notice". By the way, I don't think I nominated the article for speedy deletion—rather, I first used a proposed deletion, and then since that was contested, I used an AfD nomination. Regards, ^Bongo_matic 00:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the crowd I frequent, granted a more media savy crowd, I mention obnoxious announcer, or the guy who accents every other word, and they know exactly who I'm talking about and ask "Who is that guy?" along with comments like "Get him off the air." He is a stand out announcer, even though it is in a negative sense--just the kind of announcer that obnoxious car dealers think will sell their cars. Do people who hide behind anonymity or aliases not deserve mention, or when their name comes public does that negate their "accomplishments?" No. Deep Throat was eventually identified. Captain Crunch was identified. The guy that screams and irritates your morning drive across the United States deserves such infamy. And unlike an equally famous counterpart in Southern California media Larry Miller who was recently merged after an AfD discussion, this guy works for a wide variety of clients, none of whom would be appropriate to individually merge Ken Dabrow into.Trackinfo (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Throat and Captain Crunch received significant coverage in reliable sources. That is what made the notable even before their names were made public. Is there media significant coverage of Ken Dabrow that doesn't mention his name, but that is identifiably coverage of him? If so, identify it and add it to the article. ^Bongo_matic 02:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bongo,

I find myself once again accused of being drsjpdc's sockpuppet. In fact, I am a very busy doctoral student at National University of Health Sciences, and have considerable knowledge of the subject matter that I choose to comment on. I can assure you that I am very much not drsjpdc, although I am (as are most members of the chiropractic profession) familiar with him and his contributions to chiropractic worldwide. The fact that have not posted or edited extensively is due to the severe restrictions on my time as a full time student. I also confess that I am somewhat new to wikipedia, and therefore have been hesitant to edit live articles until I feel more capable of doing so within the scope of wiki policy.

I ask you to please stop falsely accusing me of sockpuppetry.

Waynethegoblin (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response at User talk:Drsjpdc#Your friend. ^Bongo_matic 03:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

for OUTING Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 04:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there; refactored original comments. ^Bongo_matic 04:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to comment here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not experienced in SPIs. Would it be possible to add the SPA that you tagged at WP:Articles for deletion/Tom Hyde to the SPI, or does it require more evidence? DigitalC (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think once the check user is run it will pull up any additional sock puppets if they exist. A couple of years ago I requested a sock puppet check on a user and a couple of her accounts and the CU pulled up a couple dozen additional accounts that I had not know about. You might ask this question on the SPI talk page to confirm. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 18:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged an article with claims of "notability" issues [1], and nominated it for AFD an hour later [2]. In the future, it would be more constructive to attempt to discuss your complaints at the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 09:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion on your talk page. ^Bongo_matic 09:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did not even post one single solitary post to the article's talk page before proceeding straight to AFD. That is a bit rash. Please improve your behavior patterns in the future. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit and explained why in the edit summary.[3] You may wish to re-add appropriately. Ty 09:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have just replaced it at 9.15[4] before a date stamp which says 00.30. This is completely misleading. Kindly post it separately with the correct time of posting shown. Ty 10:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind explaining the nature of your objections beyond what the tag suggests? --Falcadore (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing beyond what the tags suggest. I am not an expert in the field. If you feel they are inapplicable, act accordingly. ^Bongo_matic 13:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course I did see "....having structured data about sources available for query / analysis...". Unfortunately it doesn't make any sense to me. What does that mean, and why is it a valuable goal? So many thanks... • Ling.Nut 14:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By "structured data about sources" I mean that key information about sources is tagged so that a database can be created and queried. Ideally, all the information about sources would be reliably tagged, so that a database could quickly easily identify what Wikipedia articles reference New York Times articles by David Carr, or how prevalent a source JAMA is compared to the NEJM, etc.

The various {{cite}} templates achieve this to a degree, though there is a huge amount of flexibility in how they are intended to be used, and even more variation in how they are actually used. These templates bundle this useful tagging functionality with formatting conventions. My view (as stated) is that regardless of what people decide about formatting of references, making sure the citation data structured and easy to get at ought to be a key goal of this process.

Regards, ^Bongo_matic 14:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this a worthy goal? More specifically, how will it help us build an encyclopedia? • Ling.Nut 14:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Among many other reasons, it permits analysis of the nature of references in the encyclopedia, helping to identify systemic issues. It also would serve as an extension of the sort of reference network tools such as exist for academic journals or legal opinions. I infer from your user page that you are a bottom-up person when it comes to evaluating the quality and utility of the encyclopedia, but top-down analysis is something that many (including me) feel to be useful. For a more practical and less abstract (if not terribly frequent) reason, suppose that a journalist or academic is identified as falsifying information or data, or an important court case is overruled. This would permit quick identification of which Wikipedia articles need to be revised or checked. 14:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I see. Similar perhaps to looking for refs by George Monbiot? • Ling.Nut 15:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Similar. But different. ^Bongo_matic 15:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(undent, there's only two of us) Errm, how different? Why can't we just use Google to do what you want to do? • Ling.Nut 15:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For any number of reasons. It doesn't distinguish between text and references. If you search for "David Carr" and "New York Times" it gets all articles that happen to have either, or both, but not necessarily those referencing articles by David Carr in the New York Times. It doesn't permit automation, such as giving an ISBN and searching for matches that might be correct. It doesn't make it easy to winnow down common names. It doesn't have any way to accurately count things, avoiding duplicates, etc. It's simply not a database tool. ^Bongo_matic 15:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

databases are nice and cute and all, but they are wholly optional. Irrelevant, even, to the task of making an encyclopedia. I would go so far as to say that this is a solution in search of a problem, and quite frankly, is largely driven by the personal desires of programming hobbyists. Tks • Ling.Nut 09:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bongomatic, i'm here to ask why you redirected Daniel Quinn (rugby league) to Daniel Quinn. Daniel Quinn (rugby league) is an article about an Australian rugby league footballer and Daniel Quinn is about an american writer. It's obvious they're not the same person. So why? By the way i've undid your redirect. Josh the newcastle fan (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Apologies. Saw two recently created articles on rugby league Quinns and thought one was a dup of the other. Didn't notice that they had different first names! ^Bongo_matic 15:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bongomatic, I reviewed the Alex Tronic article and addressed the issues raised including adding notable references and removing any perceived advertising. Please can you confirm this is now OK? Many Thanks Whodis7 (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've only tried this once or twice before and am not confident of the procedure. I created a hook for an article I had started, The Wodehouse, and placed that hook on Template talk:Did you know on Jan 14. You raised an objection to the wording; I amended the wording about 12 hours later, but nothing has happened in the last six days. Could you have a look again, please? I don't want the hook to be deleted because the discussion has gone stale. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there are plenty that haven't been checked yet—I'm not really an expert on the process. Good luck! ^Bongo_matic 15:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You raised a reasonable objection and I did my best to adapt the hook. Could you look again and state on the DYK page whether my new version successfully meets your criteria? Thanks. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bongomatic I am reporting you for vandalizing Zayra's page. You are a coward for attacking such a wonderful artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparta1114 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit over a year ago, you commented in the afd discussion for Comparison of web based file managers. It was shortly thereafter reposted by its creator as List of web based file managers, which is currently on afd itself. I invite you to participate in the new discussion. —Korath (Talk) 18:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know we've received a complaint at OTRS about this article; please be extra-sensitive when editing it. Stifle (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Will do. Looks like it's being edited by a bunch of socks of either the individual or someone related. ^Bongo_matic 21:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Always appreciate fresh, smart new ideas, I asked your question here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Automatically_adding_articles_to_an_editors_watchlist.3F thanks again! Ikip 06:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With a user name like "Bongo" I hope to find you sympathetic to my attempt to categorize, and label, as many of the records that master drummer Hal Blaine played on as is possible. What I did last night was (after several miserable attempts and failures) was create the category and add it to the songs - mostly singles that he played on. Some of the tunes had multiple versions in the articles but from what I could tell the categories did not have to relate to every version in the article. Do you need more of a discussion before proceeding in what ever direction you choose to go in? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that NotHughThomas has been blocked indefinitely for disruption, do you still think that it was wise to readd that review? If so, can you please comment at Wikipedia talk:Editor review/antiuser to the concerns I've raised? Thanks. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I enjoyed reading Lee Arthur and was surprised that the author of it wasn't already an wp:Autoreviewer. So I've fixed that. ϢereSpielChequers 09:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WereSpielChequers

I appreciate the gesture. I actually like having my contributions reviewed, but in the spirit of trying to reduce the backlog at new page patrol, I won't ask you to undo your change to my rights!

Glad you liked the article, and appreciate the copyedit. However, I am embarrassed to say that due to some sort of mental glitch in my auditory-to-typing pathway, I created the article under the wrong name! There is already a competent article on Lee Archer! I'll merge anything missing and then nominate my orphan for speedy deletion. D'oh!

Since you're in the helping out business, have a gander at Dick Brass (whose name I hope I've gotten right!), a stub that could use considerable expansion, but for which the sources provided are sufficient for much of it. Have a read, and see if you get inspired.

Regards, ^Bongo_matic 13:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in a categorisation mood so I've added a few to Dick Brass. One of the ideas I floated a while back was to change the colour coding at newpage patrol so that we had more than a binary choice. I think there are a lot of editors who would benefit from the attention of the back of the queue patrol, but who would could use an exemption from the front of the queue patrollers who are basically hunting for vandalism and hoaxes. ϢereSpielChequers 13:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is a good idea.

Thanks for helping out on Mr Brass—did you verify his year of birth (it might be in one of the references, but I put circa based on a reference to age 47 in November 2000, I think), or just figure something's better than nothing? ^Bongo_matic 13:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither, I just didn't spot that little c there... A year based on a November reference is very probably correct and at worst out by one, so for longdead people I'd be inclined to use the category - or maybe even both possible categories. But as he is very much alive I've removed it. ϢereSpielChequers 14:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bongo, do you have access to the NYT archives? What does the obit on H. Neill Wilson say? Also, can you check out the reference on the Bishop reference? Horoshow speciba comrade. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, sorry—some old NYT articles show up as PDFs and some show up as PDFs for a price—I look at the former, not the latter, as a rule. ^Bongo_matic 09:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bongo, have you searched theat Martin Grace did not win any academy awards, or are you going by memory? DGG ( talk ) 15:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched in the Oscars web site, done a news search, and reviewed IMDB (which although not RS is quite useful). ^Bongo_matic 15:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I untagged Mike Ross (radio host)... A7 is for no reasonable claim of notability, not just because it fails notability. Being involved in any sort of national mass media is a reasonable claim of notability. Feel free to take it to AfD. Gigs (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you continue to add the notability tag to Ydanis Rodriguez. He clearly qualifies as a notable Politician. He qualifies under the No. 2, where it states "members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city."Racingstripes (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you read to the end of the sentence, you will see it concludes with "who have received significant press coverage". He has does not appear to have done so. ^Bongo_matic 06:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't end with that. The first sentence is "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Then there is second sentence stating "Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." Which he is clearly a member of the main citywide government council of the largest metropolitan city in America.Racingstripes (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. As stated on the article's talk page, it says that such figures are "are likely to meet" that criterion, not that they are automatically deemed to do so. The criterion itself requires "significant press coverage", which has not been demonstrated for the subject of this article. ^Bongo_matic 06:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider that the NY Daily News refers this wikipedia article http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Ydanis+Rodriguez. Also every NYC city council member prior to the 2009 election has a wikipedia article. I really don't know what significant prss coverage means but there are plenty of articles: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] are just a few press coverage examples. And that's just some of the english speaking articles.Racingstripes (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's lots of other stuff that may or may not be notable. None of the examples you cited constitutes (in my view) "significant coverage". Routine acts of an official don't meet the criterion, or otherwise every official whose official actions get covered in the local paper would be notable, which is clearly not the sense of the guidelines. I'm not saying he isn't notable; I'm saying that his notability hasn't been adequately demonstrated. So why don't you stop arguing with me and remove all doubt by sourcing the article well? ^Bongo_matic 07:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we have a difference in opinion. I feel it has been adequately demostrated.Racingstripes (talk) 07:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you think that the article adequately demonstrates "significant coverage" with this single independent source? The only other sources cited are the city counsel sources and his campaign website. These do not establish notability under either POLITICIAN or GNG. Whatever you say here or on the talk page isn't relevant to the template—this isn't an AfD. The template is valid so long as the article itself doesn't demonstrate notability. ^Bongo_matic 07:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bongomatic. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Titus in September 2009, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Titus (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I love how you didn't even bother to add a track listing or infobox. That's not even trying to make a stub; it's like, sub-sub-sub-sub-stub. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created the stub (or what ever pejorative term you prefer for it) the day after the death of the recording artist. It seemed possible to me that the subsequent interest in him could lead to edits to related articles. It further seemed to me preferable to have an authoritatively referenced stub in place should someone want to add detail. As you have highlighted, contrary to speculation, there was no flurry of Tisdale album editing, so the article remained in its original state.

If you think the encyclopedia is better of with a redirect, that's fine—I referenced the article as well.

My own view (from experienced) is that even if an editor disagrees with the views or actions of other editor, sarcasm—other than among people who know one another quite well—and ad hominem attacks are seldom helpful (although when directed my way, I seldom am terribly bothered). If I had a similar view to the one you expressed—by reference to my personal qualities or motivations—I would probably have said something like:

I noticed that the above-captioned stub article has no information not contained in the main article. As it hasn't been expanded in the nine months since its creation, I have redirected it to the article. Generally, I find the creation of such stubs not to be improvements to the project.

It is ironic that you cited WP:PUTEFFORT, as that essay points out that one-sentence stubs can be useful, and mainly urges the inclusion of basic information, categories, and references—all of which were included in the original version. ^Bongo_matic 22:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I amended WP:PUTEFFORT to make it clearer that I think articles should at the very least have infoboxen, and that album articles should at the very least have track listings. Sorry if I was rude and unclear; I was extremely tired. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, you're both good people and fine editors. The Hammer apologized, and I accept on behalf of the world. BTW, Hammer, I think you're wrong about requiring infoboxes and track listings--I think those things aren't nearly so important. But then, I only have one otter. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I add some KENKEN/KENDOKU Free puzzle site at KENKEN page. But you erase it, may I know why? If it is useful for that KENKEN puzzle, we shall inform the reader about the reference link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunny.arky (talk • contribs)

Please review WP:EL which explains Wikipedia's policy on external links. ^Bongo_matic 23:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to let you know I have removed your notability prod on the Phatchance article; if you remember the last debate it was resolved amongst the voters that if more primary sources were found the article would warrant inclusion - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28music%29 (satisfies the following guidelines for inclusion - coverage in third party sources (including both a review and fourth page editorial in The Australian - Has won or placed in a major music competition. Unearthed - Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. Triple J (please see J Play source) - Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. www.abc.net.au/triplej/hiphop ran a special interview/broadcast on him for his tour (though I have not bothered to try and dig up proof of this, check google :) )

Hopefully this satisfies any concerns you have, please contact me via my talk page if you want to discuss it further or take the article to deletion debate Stevezimmy (talk) 10:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(not a prod but I think you knows that now). One article and a short review is not much, leave that to someone other than yourself to decide that. Unearthed feature artist is not a major contest. JPlay does not show needed rotaion. No evidence shown that that interview was the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But this is entirely subjective - I see Unearthed as a major competition, you don't, Silver Chair et. al would probably disagree with you. I will copy paste the additional articles I put on your page here Duff, are you arguing that they are not extensive coverage? As I put to you on your page; how many articles exactly do you require? J Play demonstrates that the artist is in the top 20% of all Australian artists played on the National radio network (how do I prove rotation?) If you go quickly to http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hiphop/ you can stream the interview yourself (though as of tomorow you will have to podcast it) the interview ran for more than half an hour on a national broadcast - that alone warrants inclusion. Here are the articles etc. I posted on your page - please see (http://www.onion.com.au/article/80 - http://musicfeeds.com.au/music/phatchance/ - http://scenemagazine.com.au/index.php/component/content/article/615-phatchance-interview etc. etc.) and here is the proof of the Myspace feature, though I don't wish to use it for the citation as it's a little messy to use imageshack - http://img4.imageshack.us/i/myspacefeature2.jpg/ http://img7.imageshack.us/i/myspacefeature.jpg/ Stevezimmy (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some more content - a feature article in The Inner West Courier http://inner-west-courier.whereilive.com.au/news/story/phatchance-plays-the-annandale-hear-him-here-and-now/ - http://aftertheemergency.redcross.org.au/get-info/links-profiles/phatchance - http://www.threedworld.com.au/music/reviews/showmusicreview.asp?id=4049 Stevezimmy (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out, if you think those liks provide independent coverage from reliable sources then the article is the best place to post them. As to the Triple J link, how fast do I need to be, page show no evidence of what you say. Are you saying they talked about, played music by, Phatchance for over half an hour? I don't believe you. You keep asking how do I prove? That is important wp:v duffbeerforme (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I am saying; there was an interview, live performance and four tracks got played - they discussed the live dates for his national tour etc. and the unearthed successes and radio playlisting - http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hiphop/mod_windows/hiphop.asx skip to the 40 minute mark - tomorow it will change to the new show and you will have to podcast the broadcast. Stevezimmy (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making some modifications to the Rose Gray article - I only created this article after hearing on news on BBC Radio 4 that she had passed away. I remember that it was just under a year ago (in March 2009) that you filled me in with details of how Kosuke Koyama had died, and how you had read his obituary in the New York Times, and said that you would have started a stub if there had not been an article on Koyama in the English Wikipedia. I was in a similar position with Rose Gray - she did not have an article in Wikipedia, but as her death was quite a news-worthy feature, she seemed notable enough to merit one. Many thanks to you and to all the others who have worked hard on improving the page - I am not an expert on chefs (my job is to teach Psychology) so I appreciate co-operation from other Wikipedians on this article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No prob—and thanks for starting it. You should probably nominate it for a DYK. ^Bongo_matic 03:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGjoEvEPtvU

This is one source of, well, the sound. Also, this website talks about it. http://laughtrack.wordpress.com/2010/01/22/the-backwards-station/ I'm currently looking for a reliable, possibly institutional article about the station. It also appears that this is one of possibly two active number stations.

Also, thank you for your help. I really appreciate it.

Sean 0000001 (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this on my user site about three days ago.

Unfortunately, I don't think these qualify as WP:RS. ^Bongo_matic 07:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about this? http://www.audiopronews.ro/2010/01/the-backward-music-station-enigma-%E2%80%98xm%E2%80%99/

It is a news source, so I think that it could count.

Could we possibly incubate this article? As I said in the discussion page of the article, I don't know that much about this subject, and someone else might know more.

Also, a personal question, how'd you get all that neat stuff on your user page? Mine's almost completely blank.

Sean 0000001 (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a blog reposting the contents of another blog to me. You can just move the article to your user space by clicking the "move" tab when viewing the article, and enter "User:Sean 0000001/Backwards Music Station. Then edit the original page—now a redirect—and replace the content with {{tl|db-r2}. Then you can work on the article in your own time.

The user page? The boxes I cribbed from elsewhere. The bacon barnstar was awarded for my having created the Bacon Explosion article. The rest of anything fun there—including the info box—is vandalism from friends. ^Bongo_matic 08:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bongomatic, I truly appreciate all the help that you've given me. Bless you. As for the article, I'll incubate it and work on it in my free time, as you suggested.

I can't thank you enough.

Sincerely,

Sean

67.83.48.26 (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bongomatic. Because you participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Titus (2nd nomination), you may be interested in Talk:Steve Titus#Requested move. Cunard (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What up, Bongo? Just a quick hey--gotta run off to class. Keep fighting the good fight. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saying "hi", Doc. Hope all is going well—I seem to always be reading about your latest BBQs, so I assume they are. I thought you knew, though, that I'm a lover, not a fighter. ^Bongo_matic 23:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bongo. I haven't seen you around much lately. Are you working a job? You didn't get a girlfriend did you? Anyway, I just wanted to stop by and say hello. Take care of yourself! And good luck with the posture and diction classes at secretarial school. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi COM. Thanks for the note. Pro wrestlers aren't the only ones who have to take the occasional beating for work—things have been rather hectic (but not unpleasant—nothing to complain about, certainly) off wiki. Hope everything is copacetic! ^Bongo_matic 23:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshi Same and Different is fake. Can you edit again to remove the fake books? Do it and I'll be your friend.

I deleted that one. If there are others, you are free to remove them yourself. ^Bongo_matic 02:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted And to Think That I saw it on Mulberry Street because it was never part of Beginner Books. Also removed the Boohbah, Teletubbies, Peep and a Like Friend books because these were fakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.119.71 (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Your note about the overlooked question came at a time after I had been doing some deep reflection on my work here at Wikipedia, and it allowed me to best express my thoughts on a very cogent subject. Its quite long (sorry). But again, thank you very, very much for the question. Best regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heeeey Bongo, nice to know you're still around, and keeping an eye on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clipbucket. The smell of dirty socks is all over the place there--I'm pretty sure any closing admin would see this too, right? I mean, I don't have to point it out, right? Oh, I got a note from Kelapstick: he's in Mongolia. Mongolia! Now that is an exciting place. Thanks, and take care, Drmies (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolia is a particularly exciting place for miners. I have no idea how the food is there, though.

Dirty socks? Nah--transparent, easy to identify and ignore socks. Think you're right, but still worth slapping on the obligatory {{spa}} when it's warranted. ^Bongo_matic 03:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He said the bacon was awful! Drmies (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me what exactly was wrong with the links I put in. They were links to complete comics that are in the public domain, free and with not a commercial banner in sight. How was putting in external links to actual source material in anyway invading pages. Surely a link to the comic books that the article is about are extremely good!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by EManac (talk • contribs) 10:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Wikipedia guideline on external links. It can be found here. ^Bongo_matic 15:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read that BEFORE I submitted any links ... they are ideal .. they refer to SOURCE material they are the ACTUAL comics the article is about. I did not add any editorial content or delete any other links There is no spamming as ALL the links I submitted referred to UNIQUE pages that only included comics that DIRECTLY related to the article. There are links there to covers ... I provided links to FULL comics ...

I refer you to the below text in guidelines

"The most important first step is to focus on content, and not on editors. Wikipedia is built upon the principle of collaboration and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is important to any community."

"Most situations are not urgent. Please give both yourself and the other party some time."

"Assume good faith; in other words, try to consider the person on the other end of the discussion to be a hinking, rational being who is trying to positively contribute to Wikipedia. Even if you're convinced that they're evil reptilian kitten-eaters from another planet, still pretend they're acting in good faith. Ninety percent of the time, you'll find that they actually are acting in good faith (and wouldn't you have looked stupid if you'd accused them of being evil)."

"6.Particularly, don't revert good faith edits. Reverting is a little too powerful sometimes, hence the three-revert rule. Don't succumb to the temptation, unless you're reverting very obvious vandalism (like "LALALALAL*&*@#@THIS_SUX0RZsammygoo", or someone changing "4+5=9" to "4+5=30"). If you really can't stand something, revert once, with an edit summary something like "(rv) I disagree strongly, I'll explain why in talk." and immediately take it to talk (the discussion page)."

So I still do not understand why you removed links to UNIQUE data the ACTUAL Comics the article is about ... as an example a link to 30 full issues of Captain Marvel surely this link is the most important of all the external links. I think rather than a 1 line reply with a link that a fuller explanation is needed as currently it would look to outsiders that your revertion is close to vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EManac (talk • contribs) 16:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see in particular WP:ELNEVER item 1, which states: "Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked." The linked website displays only copyrighted materials and has no suggestion of having any license to display such. ^Bongo_matic 16:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat ALL THE COMICS I have provided links to are in THE PUBLIC DOMAIN —Preceding unsigned comment added by EManac (talk • contribs) 16:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Bongomatic, it would be useful if there was a single talk page to answer this on and I'm not comfortable with using someone else's talk page, but it's only logical to not spread discussion over a number of pages. Can I first cover a number of convention issues:

• 1 new sections should be added to the bottom of someone' talk page, not the top - it's a bit like queue jumping, and I for one don't look at the top of my talk page, that's old stuff;
• 2 if there's going to be discussion about something, I'd suggest that a reply talk page would be useful. 'Assume good faith' of course, but on occasions when someone does something unusual and there's no 'return address' it does tend to colour judgement a little. Not to mention, I would have messaged you about the entries when I came across them, but how?

I have some concerns over Public Domain - personally I'd be looking for clarification now that DC Comics are publishing the characters in Zip/Blue Ribbon etc.

Personally, I've just assumed that these kind of links aren't permissible because I haven't come across any (so it could simply be a case of nobody does it so nobody does it). Could easily be I'm wrong, so I've put a query on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics to check the policy (it might have been a good idea to do that first). Let's see what happens. In the meantime, 'Disputed links should be excluded by default until there is a consensus to include them', so no more should be added.WP:ELBURDEN.Cheers!Archiveangel (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

1) There are links on wikipedia to covers and selected pages already on certain comic articles.

2) All the comics on furycomics are in the public domain .. most of the raw scans I worked with originate from goldenagecomics.co.uk (the site is down tempoarily over easter) but there is a sister site which is basically a mirror http://digitalcomicmuseum.com/. The sites hold downloaded archives. All the scans there are checked by a variety of admins to make sure they are in the public domain. Also notice that I have no content for Superman/Batman/Captain America etc ... as these are very much in copyright. All the comics are 40-50's and none are modern as again these are copyrighted.

3) Hopefully you'll see my point that they are prime source and great links ... I have spent many months on this project and wanted to share. I have absolutely no intention of spamming, scamming or breaking copyright laws.

4) Sorry if I have been a bit "grumpy" but I spent most of yesterday finding the pages and linking checking links etc and had just about finished. And thought I'd made a great contribution, then I found all my work had been reversed. I will just say again this is public domain content.

Best regards,

Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by EManac (talk • contribs) 19:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

response on my talk page, to be fair to B and because it covers other matters Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EManac. There is nothing on the web site that indicates the content is in the public domain. The comics themselves have copyright notices for years where, if the copyrights have been renewed, they are still in copyright. For material that is copyrightable, and has prima facie evidence of being protected, more than one editor's say-so is necessary.

In addition, for some of the links there are other EL concerns. ^Bongo_matic 23:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archiveangel, feel free to keep the conversation here. ^Bongo_matic 23:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly supported at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics#External_links_to_sites_with_non-copyright_comics. Cheers B. Archiveangel (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! for the speedy deletion of FuryComics.com attempt to invade a number of GA pages saving me a late night checking them all or a shock this morning approximately equal to finding out there's no cheese for breakfast (v high on the Richter Scale, I'll tell you, but never happens). Help yourself to a beer from the fridge. Archiveangel (talk) 08:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it has been pointed out already in the discussion but as FuryComics is a site (at least partly) run by EManac this falls under WP:EL#ADV (and the WP:COI and WP:SPAM guidelines that mentions) and there is very little wiggle room, if additions of such links continue then they can be added to a robot that automatically removes them whoever adds them, which can be a pain. Users infringing this guideline repeatedly can find themselves blocked.

If other users wanted to add this it'd still require some clear statements about the copyright checks that have been done to ensure this is public domain. Pre-1923 material is usually public domain but after that it gets very hazy and largely relies on copyright being re-registered. So someone like Project Gutenberg state very clearly that they only add material that they have specifically checked the status of do ensure it is public domain. If people just assume it is public domain because of the age or don't do rigorous checks then I don't feel a link can be added. It is possible though that this might need kicking up to some talk page where the copyright issue can be thrashed out by experts. (Emperor (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

As I have written on Archiveangels page I have decided that I really don't want to pursue this any further. In my own mind then and now my links were a very valid contribution with no copyright infringements. I spent time carefully putting unique links in the right places and would also just like to say in parting as soon as I noticed the links were being deleted I raised the issue and I certainly had/have no intention of spending my time putting them up again for them just to be deleted a second time, Best regards Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by EManac (talk • contribs) 16:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

As I've discussed on my talk page, the situation for the likes of FuryComics can get somewhat difficult once the Digital Economy Bill has been forced through Parliament (not rabid cant - because of the impending election the Bill will receive at most 1 hour discussion in the Commons on Tuesday 06th April before becoming law in a process known as wash-up. The process doesn't allow Committee Stage, where the 400+ amendments and objections made by the House of Lords or any objections by the public and interested organisations would be discussed - including major HofL concerns as to the legal correctness of parts of the Bill!; so it will become law in all it's dreadfully flawed glory). In essence Emperor's explanation of Wikipedia's stance (above and elsewhere) will become derigeur for everyone in the UK hosting or providing copyright, or possible copyright, material, they can be assumed guilty or pay to prove otherwise. Nice. Archiveangel (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bongomatic. Please see User_talk:Zzuuzz#User:Bongomatic.2FThe_Improvisatore, and comment there as you see fit. The other articles at User_talk:Skier_Dude/archive/archive_Dec_09#Userfication_request will also need resolving in terms of attribution. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, perhaps I should point out that among the articles I cited, the ones which appear most important at this stage are:

• User:Bongomatic/The Improvisatore
• User:Bongomatic/O. T. (particularly well researched)
• User:Bongomatic/Only a Fiddler
• User:Bongomatic/The Dying Child

If you could allow me to use these as a basis for further work, it would be very helpful. -- Ipigott (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no plans to work on the articles. The restored versions in my user space don't appear to include the full history as I understand to be required for the appropriate license. That said, I have no ownership claim over any of this and you are free to do whatever may be permitted under the content's license (inside or outside my user space).

Regards, ^Bongo_matic 16:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An AFD you participated in 6 months ago, is being done again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boba_Phat_(2nd_nomination) Dream Focus 08:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Bongo, how could you! Booooo. How have you been? Have you taken a look at my new project, I had left a note for Drmeis to finish it for me, but it looks like I will have to take it past the DYK threshold myself. I haven't had much of the local cuisine, it looks a lot like stewed beef, and I can make that myself, but the dumplings are pretty awesome (not sure if they are local), and I managed to score some dragon fruit, which is most excellent. A week from today I will be in Ulan Bator, waiting to catch a flight to Seoul, before I leave for the the motherland. Cheers. --kelapstick (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping an eye on the article. --BorgQueen (talk) 01:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't had much time online lately, but do what I can. Thanks for the note. ^Bongo_matic 23:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was told to contact you since you were the one that suggested this page for deletion. It has been modified to (hopefully) meet notability guidelines, and numerous references have been provided. Can you evaluate it at User:Sgdiii/Michelle DeFraites or does it have to be publicly posted again? I am new to this, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks! Sgdiii (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which notability guidelines does the article (as rewritten) demonstrate the subject to meet? What references back up such an assertion? I don't see it but if it's there, please point me in the right direction. ^Bongo_matic 03:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the notability guidelines, and there seems to be no clear-cut threshold as to the definition of "notable." The Disney MovieSurfers are considered notable, so would their individual members be notable as well? I have also included links to third-party articles written about her from various sources in an effort to satisfy those requirements. Is there a specifir number of movie or TV appearances that a performer must meet? I want to meet all the proper requirements so there will be no additional trouble with this article. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgdiii (talk • contribs) 16:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that there is no clear-cut threshold. In fact, there are a number of potential ways to objectively demonstrate that an individual meets the guidelines. In particular:

• WP:GNG sets a threshold for any topic whatsoever—"significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject".
• WP:BASIC is a reiteration of the GNG for people.
• WP:ANYBIO provides a few more specific inclusion criteria for people in general.
• WP:ENTERTAINER provides more specific inclusion criteria for people such as actors.

It does not appear to me that any of these criteria has been met, though if you have any specific sources or facts that you think demonstrate otherwise, I would be happy to give you my opinion.

With respect to your specific query about MovieSurfers and their members, please see WP:NOTINHERITED. ^Bongo_matic 17:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can assume, then, that you do not consider any of the secondary sources listed as reliable enough? What is the definition of 'significant' coverage? I also read the article about inherited notability; I do not see that it precludes or prohibits the inclusion of this article. I must admit, it is beginning to seem as if these guidelines are open to wide interpretation, adding to the confusion... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgdiii (talk • contribs) 20:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are just so many Wikipedia policies and guidelines, essays and interpretations, and precedent discussions on talk pages, deletion nominations etc.—all scattered over a wide range of places—that I understand how it could appear that everything is confusing or arbitrary or subject to a wide range of interpretation. In fact, there is broad, if imperfect, consensus of what "reliable sources" are (see WP:RS), and what "significant coverage" is (the notability guidelines themselves give a reasonable path forward). None of the sources currently cited appear to me at first blush to be "significant coverage" in "reliable sources", but as I said before, if you think there is one in particular that is unambiguous, please identify which one and I'll review it again.

Here's a nice essay that was just written on notability of actors and films by a prolific editor and champion of the "little guy" that might be of relevance: User:MichaelQSchmidt/Too Soon. ^Bongo_matic 00:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read all the articles you mentioned, and I must admit, I am still as confused as ever. Most data on young actors is likely to be in electronic form, and rarely published in "hard copy" so if that is the standard, I should give up the fight now. All of her IMDB references are from the Internet Movie DataBase, considered the Reference "Bible" of the industry in Hollywood. It is one of the most up-to-date, reliable, and trusted sources in the entertainment business. These references confirm her appearances and roles in TV shows and movies of note. Her MovieSurfer information comes directly from the Disney Corporation. One of the articles you mentioned said blogs' validity is also up for wide interpretation, and not necessarily unreliable or invalid. The blogs in question come from a professional nationwide entertainment scouting company.

There does not seem to be much more I can offer at this point. You seem to be the one who has final say over the interpretation of these guidelines as far as this article is concerned. If you maintain that it is "not enough" or "not verified," then I unfortunately must abide by your decision and try again at another time. Despite your kind assistance, this has been a most frustrating experience... Sgdiii (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no say over anything. Mine is one of a million voices that comprise the consensus view.

On the merits, you seem to be mistaking verifiability with notability. If you look at NF, you will see that being in films only gives rise to notability if they are significant roles in notable films. From a perusal of IMDB, it doesn't appear that any of the films she has appeared in is notable, so I'm not sure what your beef with IMDB is.

Anyway, nothing prevents you from recreating the article and letting the community decide again (though an administrator may determine that there is no material difference between the current article and the one deleted by consensus, so it could be speedily deleted). My opinion is not determinative in any way. ^Bongo_matic 02:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you misunderstood my comments. I have no beef with IMDB; quite the opposite. I was trying to explain that IMBD should be considered a "reliable" source. I assumed you had some say in the evaluation of this article because you were the person that originally suggested its deletion. Then after only two people agreed, it was done, leading me to believe that if only three people have to agree on an article's deletion, those people must have some authority. Wikipedia is so vast and complex, I fear I will never understand it fully. Regardless, I will try to compile more information, and eventually re-release this article into the wild...  :) Sgdiii (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please drop in at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Too Soon. I am thinkng of using a "too soon" link in my AFD discussions that will take editors to the essay. I'll provide a link to the too soon section for actors, and one to the too soon section for films. Or is the essay itself "too soon"? (chuckle) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Puts together a bunch of relevant information that is hard for relative newbies to grasp without such a guide. Nice work. ^Bongo_matic 17:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Felt the need. I figured placing the related stuff together will be a help. Thanks, --Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to undo your revert of my added link regarding the Woodstock survivors. But I do think it was of interest (I found it so, at least). May I ask for your reasoning? And do you think the issue should be talked over on the Woodstock talk page? It's no biggie, but I find your unilateral action with minimal information in the edit summary puzzling. You do at least note I edit in good faith, at least. Thanks, Jusdafax 15:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a commercial website that is not a reliable source. Generally, please have a look at WP:EL. Regards, ^Bongo_matic 23:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bongomatic, i wrote an article on a guitar constructor from Portugal with his permission. He is my only source. He gave his photo with his permission for internet use. Can you tell me if this is enough for source reference and how can i keep the page? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joaquimpires (talk • contribs) 08:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joaquimpires. Please review the notability guidelines at WP:N and WP:BIO. In short, significant coverage in reliable sources is what's called for. ^Bongo_matic 12:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of РуссДС (talk · contribs). I think our old friend may have come back, he is editing Chiropractic articles...Cyrillic script in his name (the last two letters being DS (as in Doctor Steven?) Other than that, how have you been, I am back in Mongolia, and fell in a manhole in Ulan Baatar...kelapstick (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno--the sig that Drsjpdc used converted to "D-rSDjP,DS". This one is "RussDS". Probably worth an SPI investigation given the specific edit (not the general field). ^Bongo_matic 04:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bongomatic,

As to your note re.: Notability. I have earlier asked another editor whether reference to printed coverage of our work in numerous smaller local and regional newspapers and journals is acceptable - everything from the local Madison (VA) Eagle to the UN's Secretariat News.. Unfortunately, little if any of this sort of notice and coverage of our work ends up online - but we can provide dates, issue numbers, page information, etc. Much of what we do is at the local level in a wide region. If this is acceptable, we'll start adding those very soon.

George Beker --Wikigbjgb (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bongomatic,

I am probably stupid, but I have a difficult time seeing how we can create "Notability" other than through proving the high level of use by many, many, many people and agencies. After all, this site is routinely #3 in Google for the subject which suggests a LOT of people find it useful and worthy and "notable" in some real sense. Yet few of these many thousands of users will have any occasion to write about the experience. One suggestion might be to note the numerous libraries across the Commonwealth that have chosen to list the site among the few health-related sites suggested to their patrons. But, by its nature, while it is "notable" in the sense that large numbers of people find it very worthwhile, it doesn't necessarily generate a lot of press (aside from what AG McDonnell, now Governor, wrote about it, which I presume has some merit.) Please advise how we might proceed given this situation and the proven worth of this completely free resource.

George Beker --Wikigbjgb (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you cool down and familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy before making threats. You added a notability tag on a registered Australian party, which as they are required to meet a high bar to gain registration, has always been found to be sufficient notability for Wikipedia. As such, I removed that tag. Since the article did not merely rely on primary sources, I also removed that tag, since it too was incorrect. I will be removing them again; please don't re-add them, since they're both provably invalid.

As an administrator, I would kindly suggest that making those kinds of threats and using that kind of language to users willy-nilly is a very good way to wind up getting blocked from editing yourself. Rebecca (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed Wikipedia's guidelines on notability (I don't believe that there are any policies with respect to notability). I am unable to find support there for the proposition that party registration satisfies the guidelines. WP:OUTCOMES—which is not even a guideline—doesn't weigh in on the matter.

In other countries (I have no specific experience or recollection of Australian party notability discussions), fielding candidates for nationwide posts, or successfully fielding numerous candidates for the highest legislature, has been found to establish notability. The article claims neither, hence notability is not even claimed, let alone demonstrated.

So, please educate me as to what policies in particular I should familiarize myself with. ^Bongo_matic 19:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the article before you tagged it? You just stated that fielding candidates for nationwide posts has been found to establish notability. The article states that they did just that in 2007 and will be doing so for a second time in 2010. Rebecca (talk) 06:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we have differing definitions of "nationwide posts". I do not mean that term to mean regional representation. As far as I know (I'm not an expert on Australian government), there are no nationwide elective posts in Australia.

Moreover, upon further reflection, I don't think that simply "fielding" a candidate for nationwide office is sufficient (there are non-notable parties that do that in, for example, the US). I don't really recall the discussions in detail, but some amount of success (%age electorate garnered), coverage, or some other indicia. ^Bongo_matic 06:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fielding representatives for each state is exactly the same as fielding nation wide candidates, as Australia has no nation wide positions to be voted on. The only places not represented by the Secular Party of Australia are the territories which do not have legal standing as states in Australia. By your initial argument they've established notability. Further, the Secular Party of Australia is as of 2010 an officially registered party in Australia. Part of the official recognition process is to weed out silly parties (through objections, of which there where none on their application). -- Shraka (talk) 06:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regional representatives are not the equivalent of national representatives. In parliamentary system there are nationwide offices—they simply aren't elective. The opposite of "silly" is not "notable". ^Bongo_matic 07:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That just seems like prejudice against our particular type of electoral system. -- Shraka (talk) 09:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, "nationwide" would refer to national legislatures, like the Australian Senate. Are you suggesting that a party running for the United States Senate would not be notable, because it's a "regional office"? Anyway, as previously stated, notability is established (and I'll add that I'm the one who prodded the article before the party was registered). Registered parties in Australia have to meet very high benchmarks in order to achieve that. These parties almost always achieve enough coverage to qualify anyway; there is a federal election in a few months which should further establish this. Frickeg (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm suggesting that fielding a candidate for US Senate does not make a party notable. ^Bongo_matic 07:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They fielded 6 candidates in 2007, one for each state, not just one. -- Shraka (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

. . . that's great. And if it got significant coverage in independent reliable sources, that makes the party notable. ^Bongo_matic 02:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bongomatic. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Alan Thilak Karate School, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to schools. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the article for deletion, in part because I believe Malik's interpretation of A7 is incorrect. The AfD is in the usual place (second nomination for this article). Shadowjams (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree--this is not a "school" in that manner, but a commercial organization that does training. There's a continuum, but this clearly falls on one side of it in my view. Either way, I would have replied with an A4 instead of an AfD right away, but I'll opine after doing some BEFORE. Regards, ^Bongo_matic 04:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bongomatic,

Following your notability notice, I've added several references to secondary sources which should hopefully vindicate WebPlus as a notable entry. Can I go ahead and remove your notability notice?

Many thanks, Tyires (talk • contribs) 16:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you've added don't do much for me, but this one looks OK. ^Bongo_matic 16:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer. I've added a reference to the Washington Post. Will that do the job? Tyires (talk • contribs) 16:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Off the Menu: The Last Days of Chasen's now needs categories. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy work! I added a few—don't think there are (or should be) cats for the two minor festivals. Other than that, can't think of anything else. Appreciate it! ^Bongo_matic 05:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was fun... and there are soooooo many more great sources.[10] Glad to do it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I should have gone to bed sooner. No Orval, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, Bongomatic, I hope you are doing well. :) Thank you, for your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant. You are perhaps quite on the mark regarding bad faith on the part of the nominator, specifically see this and note that the nominator was previously involved in formal dispute resolution with me [11], apparently the user did not appreciate the fact that I had worked to get an article on a controversial aspect of history involving a group the user has an interest in, to WP:GA-quality status on Wikipedia. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on Big Spring Cafe? Another editor is doing a great job spiffing it up but nothing is being added from outside of the Huntsville (local) media.Griswaldo (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I have noted elsewhere, the guidelines distinguish between purely local and regional coverage. I believe that populations (as well as distances) matter in the differentiation between local and regional. While a New Brunswick (a town with its own local media) restaurant being covered in the Metro section of a newspaper with millions of local subscribers would seem to me unambiguously regional, this seems unambiguously local. ^Bongo_matic 13:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another similar case, this time a small chain. John's Incredible Pizza. The larger chains might be de facto notable, something that could get written into a restaurant specific section of WP:CORP should there be one.Griswaldo (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...to see that you had not worked on this. Seems like your type of article.--kelapstick (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer! Quite a worthy topic. ^Bongo_matic 02:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive anyone who holds up a store whilst under oxygen meets the threshold for inclusion per WP:OXYGENTANK. Hows it going with you, I'm almost out of here (after 10 long weeks...) Need anything in Ulan Bator? --kelapstick (talk) 04:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer--I got everything I need right here in my yurt! ^Bongo_matic 04:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I can find some more on this guy. It could make quite an entertaining article. --kelapstick (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know this guy? ^Bongo_matic 09:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's awesome, feel free to work on User:Kelapstick\russia, I am out of time for the day and will be tied up, possibly all day tomorrow.--kelapstick (talk) 09:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated NetHope NetReliefKit, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NetHope NetReliefKit. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Orange Mike | Talk 23:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On August 26th, I added this to Justin Bieber, which was later reverted by L-l-CLK-l-l, which I don't get, because if someone were to take a look on Aaron Fresh, they would see that Justin is under Aaron's associated acts, so, if Justin is under Aaron's associated acts, then Aaron should most definitely be under Justin's associated acts. I brought it up on the user's talk page, as seen here, but, after I replied once, I don't think the user wanted to deal with it, so he / she removed the discussion with an edit summary of "resolved" even though it wasn't resolved. I was wondering if I could request some assistance from you, as I'm kind of confused now. Thanks in advance. - Donald Duck (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Donald Duck. I don't have a view on this. I don't know if marginally notable acts should be mentioned as associated acts in either case, nor whether "association" one way implies association the other way. ^Bongo_matic 04:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your User subpage, User:Bongomatic/Only a Fiddler, appears in the category:1837 novels. This is a violation of WP:USERNOCAT. I can understand how one might inadvertently keep the categorization active in a userfied page. Could you please fix it? --Fartherred (talk) 14:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for [[User:Bongomatic/The Two Baronesses]] in category:1848 novels. --Fartherred (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks. ^Bongo_matic 23:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated my most recent article "Karlo Metikos" for speedy deletion. It was deleted, I did not log in and have a chance to react. The same article (a lengthy version) is on the Croatian Wikipedia, notability of this songwriter is really not arguable. Your speedy nomination was neither random nor unbiased. Please stop following what I do and stop purposly sabotaging my work here just because some other article you dislike did not get deleted. You are being disruptive and in breach of many policies. Move on in your life. Turqoise127 16:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should hope that none of my speedy deletion nominations is "random". In this case, while I am unfamiliar with the notability requirements of the Croatian Wikipedia, the deleted article didn't assert any facts which—even if true—would give rise to a presumption of notability under the guidelines on the English Wikipedia. I did some WP:BEFORE prior to nominating the article. I don't recall that the editor who tended to the nomination is particularly deletion-minded, so apparently at least one unconnected observer agreed with my characterization.

Thank you for your other suggestions and comments. I will give them due weight as I continue to edit the pages I see fit to edit. I presume you will do the same. ^Bongo_matic 17:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realised that I can't put the memorial in the article of Mr Dolby now, but I would like to know if I could do something like this, new section. Maybe under external links. I have seen this in other articles.

Put this in like this Dave Dolby: A genuine American hero Don Seeley, September 19, 2010, Retrieved 19 September 2010

Thank you, please reply either way.Thisandthem (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with the reference. However, only encyclopedic material should be added. The manner in which someone is remembered sometimes is but usually is not encyclopedic, and generally is not necessary (or particularly useful) in giving a complete treatment of an individual's biography. ^Bongo_matic 15:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, Thank you. Thisandthem (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add the divorce stuff in Gail Koff's page again - yes there was coverage of Gail Koff's divorce but most of it was exagerated and not true. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia which is suppose to provide information similar to an encyclopedia written by the public. It should not have information gathered from questionable sources that have misinformation. It should not have personal damaging information about people. the information in the newspapers about Gail Koff's divorce was exagerated and incorrect. Ralph Brill is not a lawyer as stated in one paper quoted by someone on Wiki. The prenubtual agreement did not contain information about sexual content. Yes there was disagreement about financial settlement that was resolved in court - that is it. This was a difficult situation for Gail and Ralph. Gail's family does not want this information in Wiki. Please do not put it in as has been done again and again. Gail was an unusual wonderful competant, understanding, compassionate, BRDSKoff44 (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)person who should be remembered as that.[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with the verifiability policy, the reliable sources guideline, and the original research policy. The New York Times is considered a reliable source, and information sourced there, when given significant coverage, is taken at face value unless it publishes a retraction. If you can identify reliable sources that contradict the claim in the NYT, then that can be added as an opposing viewpoint (but see WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE).

Also, please note the three revert rule. ^Bongo_matic 15:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will compromise and leave the NYT reference in but i DO NJOT want the Daily News reference which describes the prenuptual agreement incorrectly. it was scandulous in the first place. Even though something of a scandulous nature is verifiable in a NY times article does not mean it should be in an encyclopedia. i have never done this before and maybe i have created a kind of editor war being not used to this - however as a member of Gail's family i know the truth better than a supposedly verifiable newspaper source. I would prefer if the whole thing about her divorce is removed. i have made a compromise solution - putting the divorce crap at the end and only quoting the BRDSKoff44 (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)NY times.[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your note on my talk page re notability of articles. I have added further examples which I think meet the criteria you describe - they are from independent, reputable, third parties... two are independent magazines covering the theory of either problem solving or process improvement, the other is a government department blog saying they are using Southbeach Notation, with a link to the site that contains the free modelling software that supports the visual language described in the wikipedia article. You will see the new sitations at the top - The Foresight group, trizonline and BPTrends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbonline (talk • contribs) 21:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Just to let you know that I have changed the article to a redirect page to the band's article. You should be aware though that the category WP:CSD#A9 only applies to non-notable recordings where the band's article does not exist. As the article exists here, the methods to use would be to PROD/AFD/Improve or Redirect. Stephen! ^Coming... 09:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I had been going by Holy Grail (band) (see log} in determining the band's page didn't exist (in fact, it was simply recreated under the incorrect capitalization after a slew of previous deletions—possibly to avoid scrutiny). ^Bongo_matic 09:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for that. I've had a look at the article, and as it has asserted notability (albeit unreferenced), it is now no longer legible for deletion by A7. I would suggest PROD/AFD/Improve. Stephen! ^Coming... 09:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for clearing that up! --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been invited to join WikiProject Darts. We are dedicated to improving and expanding darts-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in darts and/or your edits to Darts-related articles. If you would like to join, please click here, and add your name to the bottom of the list of project members. Mr.Kennedy1 talk guestbook 14:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found this removal very insulting, to me, and to the deceased.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how. The {{recent death}} template is designed to advise editors that edit conflicts are likely. The template instructions give guidance on the level of editing where such a warning is necessary. Where such conditions are not met, avoiding this unseemly and sensationalist template is the most respectful way to deal with articles of the recently dead. ^Bongo_matic 07:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're obviously very bored. I therefore point you to House organ (AfD discussion), which needs a lot of writing. ☺ I lay down this challenge before you:

• Did you know … that the first employee newsletter in the United States was National Cash Register's Factory News?
• Did you know … that by the end of World War I there were approximately three hundred employee magazines being published in companies across the United States?
• Did you know … that by 1924 there were approximately two thousand house organs being published in companies across the United States?

Uncle G (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Made a little start. Could use expansion. ^Bongo_matic 00:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was way ahead of you. So, too, was the encyclopaedia proper, in fairness. The joke doesn't work so well if you Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, too, and realize where Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use common names) takes you on that one. ☺ You were better off accepting the cure prescribed. Uncle G (talk) 01:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patient compliance is a common issue in medicine, Dr. G. I'm known for having a not very good sense of humor, anyway. ^Bongo_matic 01:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IMDb film award has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bongo, one that I'm involved with (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Alliance for Safe Children) is suffering from lack of attention also. Do you mind having a look? BTW, I don't think that I agreed with you on every one of the AfDs you sent my way the other day, for which I apologize; I hope this doesn't mean that it's payback time for you! ;) Drmies (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies. Thanks for stopping by. I left a comment there for subsequent upgrading to an opinion.

1. Always happy to watch the consensus unfold—even if editors ignorantly disagree with the truth.
2. Have you heard of this great button at the top of the page saying "+" or "New section"? It allows the edit summary for a new section to have the title of the new section so it's clear what the topic is, rather than a random section unrelated (other than by location) to the topic.

Regards, ^Bongo_matic 22:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bongomatic, hope you are doing well! :) Just was wondering if you are participating in WP:Bacon, this time round? Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cirt, probably not so much. Don't have a lot of time to edit. I'll try to pop by and see what people are doing and see if I can help a little. ^Bongo_matic 23:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Bacon has been created, and you are cordially invited to join, and list yourself as a participant at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bacon#Participants!
• You may also feel free to add the userbox - {{User Bacon}} - to your userpage, to indicate your participation in the WikiProject.
• The Wikipedia:Bacon WikiCup is also ongoing, more info about that at User:SuperHamster/Bacon Challenge 2011, and User:SuperHamster/Bacon WikiCup 2011.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 08:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Margaret Gray has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Can't find a thing here but obituaries. I don't see any indication of sufficient sourcing to sustain this article.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice. I have removed the {{prod}} and explained why in the edit summary. If you disagree, please nominate the article for deletion using the AfD process. Regards, ^Bongo_matic 05:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you found that obituaries have been found to establish notability. Generally speaking, local, routine, or trivial coverage, such as an obituary, does not. Is there any source that wrote about her while she was alive? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Full-length obituaries in national publications are none of local, routine, or trivial—they are not given for most people (not even for most notable people), and the coverage is by definition substantial and in-depth. More specifically, they directly satisfy the criteria of WP:BASIC.

I have seen numerous AfD discussions for articles where the only sources are obituaries, and I have yet to see one deleted—I do not claim there is a specific policy or guideline that mentions obituaries explicitly. ^Bongo_matic 05:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bongomatic, I've declined your WP:A7 nom of Giuseppe Modesti because importance has been asserted: He can be heard in a number of live recordings, notably La sonnambula and Norma, opposite Maria Callas. He was also part of the first recordings of Linda di Chamounix and Oberto. Regards, Airplaneman ✈ 06:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an assertion of importance?! Whatever . . . ^Bongo_matic 06:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is. AfD and PROD are always options (I saw your comment on the talk page as well). Airplaneman ✈ 07:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True enough—I try to do (but don't always get around to doing) a little BEFORE even before speedy nominations. ^Bongo_matic 07:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your good faith edit, since Kraft Dinner is a Canadian product (the US product is Kraft Macaroni and Cheese). North America covers both. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bongo, I was alerted to some old matters. If you have access (or a subscription!) to the movie magazine Kino, you can find a review in issue 76, according to this search, second hit. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 03:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doc. I don't have a view on the movie, but I was straining to interpret the comment (I assume you're referring to the same one) as other than a personal attack directed at me, hence my reply. ^Bongo_matic 04:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think that was pretty clear. So--you don't have Kino? ;) I looked at the German article, and it's actually a movie I could be aligned with ideologically. Speaking of movies, Metropolis is on AMC tonight, the restored/rediscovered version (I think I worked on that section a while ago--if so, I didn't do it any good, since it's a mess). So now I have to relearn how my DVD-R player works. Remember clicking "record" on a piece of equipment? The good old days... Anyway, if you got time to spare, it's a great movie (and a great Motorhead song). Drmies (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. Since you're fessing up to reading German, how about that query I made on your talk page a couple days back? ^Bongo_matic 22:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of these any use? Probably need a German speaker to make sense of them as the translations are a bit poor. Think the GNG is met though. Ah here's a free link to the review, that I think Drmies was mentioning too. SmartSE (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SmartSE—my interest in the film is pretty limited. My query on the Doc's talk page was actually about the topic referenced at User talk:Drmies#Dutch_.2F_Deutsch. The good doctor's comments reflect my own experience—work looks great, but no obvious way to demonstrate notability of the firm. Any tips? ^Bongo_matic 14:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Bongo, I should have dropped you a note to tell you I responded (belatedly). The Dutch have a nice site for architecture, http://www.archined.nl/; maybe the Austrians have something similar. If you find it, I'll be glad to do some translating. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see, found some links which might just about demonstrate N: [12][13] [14], but passing WP:CORP based on them might be tricky. SmartSE (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment about lack of a standard for separate articles, I found this in the second paragraph of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Philately#Country_Studies: "Many issuers were foreign powers operating in another country either through a post office abroad or through military occupation; as these issues involve more than one country, it is recommended that they have independent articles and not a section in the article of one country or the other [...]". Stan (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That is useful. Project's standards—while not Wikipedia guidelines—reflect the considered (though not always mainstream) views of subject matter experts. In this case, I don't have any reason to disagree with the project's approach. ^Bongo_matic 13:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jule Sugarman, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Jule Sugarman helped design and administer the Head Start Program, which has served 27 million American children from low-income families since its inception in 1965? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

On 16 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Geoffrey Crawley, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Arthur Conan Doyle used photos of the Cottingley Fairies to prove the existence of supernatural entities, though an analysis of the images by Geoffrey Crawley showed that they were a hoax? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

A discussion has begun about whether the article Paul Calello, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Calello until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of the article appears to rely on an interpretation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL, which specifically states that "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements". This appears to indicate that articles about deceased subjects who do satisfy those requirements are not excluded on the basis of NOTMEMORIAL. Could you please expand your reasoning, including an evaluation of the three full-length news articles referenced? (Note that I am not citing the personal remembrances as news coverage.) ^Bongo_matic 01:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself does not point to notability, and was written only after his death. The article should actually show why the subject is notable, rather than having the reader search the sources.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments at the AfD page. Either way, notability is demonstrated, so it would avoid less of a waste of editors' time for you to withdraw the nomination. ^Bongo_matic 01:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard Bing, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that cardiologist Richard Bing worked with the Nobel Prize-winning surgeon Alexis Carrel and aviator Charles Lindbergh on the early development of machine perfusion? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

		Silk Purse Award
		I am both pleased and honored to present you with the Silk Purse Award in appreciation for your assistance with improvements to the Banana powder article, essentially changing what was seen as a sow's ear, and making it into a terrific silk purse. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry for jumping the gun. I assumed as a NYT reporter and published author she was inherently notable. My bad. I updated the article if you would care to re-review when you get a chance. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Unfortunately, it is notoriously difficult to demonstrate notability of even important journalists. If you look at Michael Theodoulou—an article I created—it was up for AfD and I was unable to give a policy-based argument for why the article should be kept (but it was).

The problem with prolific journalists is two-fold—most journalists aren't covered unless they win awards, and there are a gazillion hits for them as author.

As it is, the Enid Nemy article has no real references whatsoever. This might be a reasonable place to start. There's also this and this. ^Bongo_matic 01:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these great reflinks. I didn't get any of them with a Google search. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search for:

enid nemy award -"by enid nemy"

By the way, it appears that she is no longer on the board of Lighthouse (if you go to their website there's no mention on their board list). ^Bongo_matic 04:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Michael Theodoulou is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the best to you, Bongo. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And to you, good doctor. Best to you & yours. ^Bongo_matic 08:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year Bongo (or Шинэ жилийн мэнд хүргье), did you know that there is a heading at the top of the page (from one year ago) that is exactly the same as last year's? Doc, you must get more creative with your section headings. Cheers, --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Bongo, have a look at Michael Theodoulou. Maybe we should write something up, some policy (CoM would appreciate that!). There were valuable points made in the first AfD about notability and how to establish that for journalists. My basic position is that if a journalist is frequently cited in books about the subject they write on, then they must be deemed important--like we do with the citation indices for scholars. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys for the work on Michael Theodoulou—a nice new year's present. I think you're right, but it will only end up as an essay—the possibility of substantive changes to notability guidelines seems pretty minimal. ^Bongo_matic 06:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed my link on the Ken Ken page to a site which presents Ken Ken puzzles which are larger and more difficult than the ones found at the official site.

I have read the characteristically verbose site WT:EL page. I cannot see ANYTHING there which would preclude the inclusion of this link. There is nothing in the “20 links normally to be avoided” which says that you can’t link to a site which contains advertising, as you maintained. In fact, the poster is advised that it is quite permissible to link to Youtube, which is a site solely maintained by advertising, at massively larger rates than the small site run by ONE person, Patrick Min. Why would it be OK to link to Youtube but not any other site which has some commercial input? To rigorously maintain such a position would be to cut Wikipedia off from most of the internet.

OTOH, my link conforms to all the criteria laid out in the WT:EL article for inclusion. It is a site that is assessable to the user, and which deals directly with subject at hand, i.e. Kenken (though it is called Calcudoku here). There is nothing malicious or controversial about it, and it does not violate copyright. Although it provides the same type of puzzles as does the main site, Min’s site has larger variants of Kenken, which many enthusiasts of the game have asked for. The other two links there do not do that.

Commonsense should be used in this case. I would expect that less than 1% of the data stored by Wikipedia is in the form of articles. The rest is talk pages, user pages, and history. Of the 1% that is presented, a great deal is concerned with matters such as somebody’s side street in High Wycombe and is of no use to anyone. Ken Ken is a very popular game, and newspapers only present the simplest problems. The official Ken Ken site itself also presents only simple problems. I believe that simple commonsense would show that quite a few readers of this article, who had played the game in local media and were now finding those too easy, would be gratified to see that there is a site which provides them further challenges in this field. What possible harm can there be in that? Wikipedia is supposed to teach people things, and the best way of teaching them about some procedure is let them have a go at doing it! It is completely in keeping with the scope of the article.

I have just noticed that the Py Ken link on the Ken Ken page does not work, and that there is no mention of Py Ken on Google anymore. This was a site which had variants of Ken Ken which used modular arithmetic, complex numbers and so on.

I present this explanation for why I included this site, and hope for a reply. If you decide that you do not want it there, I would like some mediation on this matter, from higher sources. Myles325a (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you seek consensus on the article's talk page? ^Bongo_matic 07:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OP myles325a back live. In the first instance, you alleged that the link I made from the Kenken article to a site which has other Kenken material was "commercial", and thus against WP:EL rules. I examined those rules, I found that having some commercial element did NOT mean there could be no valid link between a WP article and that site, and that there were hundreds of sites with some commercial element, most visibly on Youtube, which have many such links to WP. When I pointed this out, you simply "forgot" your original complaint, and now asked that I take it up on Kenken's talk page. Even after I replaced the link in question with another one, you keep deleting it, and like your compatriot, Dreamboy, have never afforded me an explanation as to how EXACTLY that link contravenes WP rules. The points I have made below pertain to his latest comments on that link, and I am reprinting them here as BOTH of you continue to exercise high-handed and bullying behaviour with me on this harmless and worthwhile link. Myles325a (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following comments are the ones I posted just now to Dreamguy, your compatriot who keeps deleting the link in turns with you. And like you, he offers no explanation as to why.

OP myles325a back live. For someone who has, I am presuming, some sort of official role in WP, your English in the above is disgraceful. I make the following points:

1. This is the fourth time I have asked you to detail what WP:EL rule I have broken in linking the Kenken article to a site which merely provides other such sites, and near variants, and includes further educational material on this mathematical puzzle. You keep deleting the link, and you still have not afforded me the common courtesy of explaining how that link contravenes the WP:EL rules.

2. Re: WP: CIVIL If I have been in contravention of the WP:CIVIL rule, then so have you. A civil person would not just delete links that are plainly not vandalistic, without some explanation. I think that you are high-handed, and a WP bully. Moreover, the issue of “civility” is separate to the matter of whether the link is appropriate or not. Even if HAD been uncivil in the discourse associated with this business, that does not, ipso facto, invalidate my contributions to this article. Who the hell do you think you are? You think I’ve been impolite to you, so you think it is quite in order to slash my contributions. You have hardly been civil to me.

3. Re: WP: CONSENSUS. There are only TWO editors who keep deleting this link. And you keep doing it serially. Your idea of consensus could use an overhaul via a dictionary. There are many editors in WP: two means nothing. On top of that, I am very much of the view that both of you are in cahoots in this business.

4. WP: COI. I feel insulted by this baseless allegation. I have an interest in Kenken, and I have some correspondence with some other people who also do. There is no commercial or ideological angle in this, and nothing for anyone to gain. I think that you are way out of line to suggest it. I have nothing to gain from this matter, except in satisfaction of helping to design a good article and assist those who have an interest in this subject.

I have said before that WP is full of articles along the line of some side-street in High Wycombe which would be of interest to half a dozen people. The Kenken page involves a puzzle that appears in newspapers across the world and is played by hundreds of thousands of people. It is extensively used by teachers as the user needs to learn about primes and factors to play the game. The puzzle can be simple, or possess a complexity that would tax the most talented of mathematical minds. It is not a trivial computer nerd pastime, but a genuinely intelligent and challenging game, requiring both logical and mathematical skill.

Wikipedia, unlike other encyclopedias, does not publish the number of hits, but I would bet they would put the Kenken article in the top 10%. The Kenken page cannot begin to deal with the finer points of the game, or the variants which have sprung up, and the devotees of such a game would always be looking for more EDUCATIONAL material on these. The link provides nothing more than a series of sites which would allow the aficionado of the game to find sites where they could learn more about the game. What on Earth is wrong with that, and how could it possibly be non-encyclopedic?

I am re-inserting the link, and putting the contents of my comments here on the talk page of the Kenken article, the talk page of your compatriot Bongomatic, as well as taking it up with the Administrators. Myles325a (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. ^Bongo_matic 03:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bongomatic.

My name is Mwangi Mukami, I have come across my own article on wikipedia and I did saw your comments on it. Since I am alive and not dead. I am of the opinion either the page be deleted in its entirety or you take time to review links provided. The message notes on that page make me look like some superfluous kid in urgent need of publicity which is not in the case.

Also let me clarify some points for your information-

In regard to my campaign of Barack Obama, the Articles appear in the following order in New York Times and Reuters

• Help Wanted
• Kenyan group vows to defend Obama from smears
• Hope Crosses the Atlantic

In regard to my Awards and Non-Violent Campaign during the Kenya 2007/8 post-poll violence, the work is well captured here

• Kenyan Youth Activist Says Leadership Change Needed to Stop Country's Violence
• A Resolution Recognizing and commending Mwangi Mukami and for other purposes.
• Moses Mukami invokes peace initiatives on Dr. King's birth anniversary celebrations!
• Call for Transition Government Backed

In regard to my being President of the Children's Cabinet and Political Activism in Kenya

• Youth told to vote out political guards
• The Spirit of Martin Luther King Jr. in Kenya
• Passion for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Dream Brings Visitor to Atlanta
• Kenya: 'Children's Cabinet V-P off to Dar'
• Children's Cabinet Cries Foul Over Trip
• Government Now Dissolves Children's Cabinet
• Children Cabinet to Sue Kwallah
• Children Cry foul over review
• Give priority to Homeless Children
• A-G meets Children's Cabinet
• Uproar At State Move Against Children's Body
• Did Our Children Deserve the Sack?

My own official website www.mglobe.org has further information.

So I take great exception of your comments to say the least. It seems to me like your never did your research well before you commented. I am not a native of Georgia. I am a Kenyan Citizen and to have a body in a Foreign Country recognize my work in Africa is not similar to being a citizen of USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.9.35 (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 76.103.9.35

Thank you for your note. Please find below my thoughts on the references supplied.

• Help Wanted

Only passing mention of Moses Mwangi.

• Kenyan group vows to defend Obama from smears

Only passing mention of Mwangi Mukami.

• Hope Crosses the Atlantic

Video interview of Mwangi Mukami. This existed at the time of the previous AfD. This doesn't—in my view—constitute significant coverage independent of the subject.

• Kenyan Youth Activist Says Leadership Change Needed to Stop Country's Violence

Coverage in a source that is not capable of establishing notability of this sort of topic (an Atlanta business publication cannot be used to establish notability for a Kenyan youth activist).

• A Resolution Recognizing and commending Mwangi Mukami and for other purposes.

Does not establish notability. See my comments at previous AfD.

• Moses Mukami invokes peace initiatives on Dr. King's birth anniversary celebrations!

Not a "reliable source" (for purposes of WP:N).

• Call for Transition Government Backed

Unable to evaluate—article header only. It is not obvious that this is a "reliable source" (for purposes of WP:N).

• Youth told to vote out political guards

Not a "reliable source" (for purposes of WP:N).

• The Spirit of Martin Luther King Jr. in Kenya

No mention of Mwangi Mukami.

• Passion for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Dream Brings Visitor to Atlanta

Not a "reliable source" (for purposes of WP:N).

• Kenya: 'Children's Cabinet V-P off to Dar'
• Children's Cabinet Cries Foul Over Trip
• Government Now Dissolves Children's Cabinet
• Children Cabinet to Sue Kwallah
• Children Cry foul over review
• Give priority to Homeless Children
• A-G meets Children's Cabinet
• Uproar At State Move Against Children's Body
• Did Our Children Deserve the Sack?

For all preceding: Unable to evaluate—article header only. It is not obvious that this is a "reliable source" (for purposes of WP:N).

In particular, with respect to allafrica.com, it is not clear from its own pages what the criteria are for inclusion. It aggregates many sources of articles, and doesn't give any reason to assume that independent editorial discretion is exercised either at each source, or at the website itself.

If you disagree with my conclusions, you should voice your opinions at the AfD discussion. I'm not sure the relevancy of your citizenship.

Regards, ^Bongo_matic 01:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever you are:

I am offended by the Article about my life. I am Mwangi Mukami. I do not know how to use wikipedia, am neither an editor nor an expert like you are to navigate through the entire wikipedia. My point is simple. I am offended to be discussed by whoever you people are without my permission. I take great offense that a group of people who really I don't care about are discussing if my work is notable or not. I will prefer my information removed from your page as it gives a bad impression of what I am trying to achieve. I am not interested at all to be notable for wikipedia that is not even a concern i abhor in my mind.

The best thing to do is to to opine "delete" at the deletion discussion. If you are indeed Mwnagi Mukami, you can also contact Wikipedia using the instructions here to protest the article.

Regards, ^Bongo_matic 04:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I have sent an email to the address. Why I brought up the citizenship issue is due to the fact that we two national newspapers i.e. Nation and Standard. Whatever this newspapers write is archived by allafrica.com, which after an year charges a fee to see the archive. Also most work are not documented similar to usa i.e. the way the New York Times has been able to keep the video long after the inauguration instead they are removed after a week or so...Anyway the messages created the impression like I was trying to canonize my work and it really did upset me. Do you have an idea how long it will take before the decision is reached? My website is mglobe.org, my official email is m@mglobe.org, if you need to authenticate that this request is genuine and am indeed Mwangi Mukami. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.9.35 (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions are typically open for seven days. They can be closed early if there's an overwhelming consensus to keep, or extended if a consensus isn't reached within that period. ^Bongo_matic 06:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - I swear I never saw that site until you pointed me to it. (BTW: I didn't create this article, I just was trying to improve it) But as you obviously are STILL following everything I do, even when it has NOTHING to do with alternative health, to critique it, perhaps you could show me where there is one quote I used verbatim, except from the actual articles I referenced. It does seem odd that you managed to become an authority on London Lee and found his "booking agent" when you were just questioning his Notability the other day. ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 03:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the least an authority on Lee. And kudos to you for adding references. I now realize that the offending text was in the article long before your edits—my apologies for the mis-attribution of the copyvio text to your edits.

Of course! I always check in on my friends! Especially when they aren't very active and haven't been around for a while, even infrequent checking results in high coverage. ^Bongo_matic 03:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and also, you're welcome for helping you learn about {{citation}} templates. ^Bongo_matic 03:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And another pointer is that when using named references, you just type <ref name=MyReference/> instead of <ref name=MyReference></ref>. ^Bongo_matic 04:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

London has bragged for years about being in this film. When I knew him he told me that too. But here's the complete cast and crew. Can YOU find him?^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 04:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced that he meets the notability guidelines—don't see anything that constitutes "significant coverage"—are you? ^Bongo_matic 05:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding , right? 80+ appearances on Ed Sullivan, Johnny Carson and Merv Griffin alone is significant coverage. This guy was called a King of comedy in his time. Just because you are too young to remember him doesn't mean that he was not a major figure in show biz. BTW: I don't even like him. He borrowed $1700.00 and never paid me back. You're just all over this to give ME a hard time, why not admit it. ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 18:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just like there's no reliable source backing the claim of appearing in the Woody Allen movie, I don't see any authority for the numbers you're quoting. ^Bongo_matic 01:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check your sources too. I didn't quote those numbers. That was in the article when I came along. I always wonder what's wrong when we agree. :) ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 05:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "quoting" here, above on this page, didn't mean to suggest you'd added them to the article. The reliable sources don't back those numbers at all—the only place I see them is the website of the promoter. ^Bongo_matic 07:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So What would you do about that? I have been working in other wikis, where I have all necessary authority to do what's needed. Here, I want to be sure I follow "pedia-protocol"... just remove the numbers and re-write to conform with verifiable facts?...that's my inclination.^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 17:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the normal approach would be to reduce the claims in the text to what is supported by the citations. The current "Controversy" section should also be removed as it relates original research—true facts, perhaps, but facts that haven't been independently reported upon (also, IMDB is not an RS here). The fact that his agent makes unsupported claims has not been noted in reliable sources, so it's not really a notable fact by Wikipedia standards (and in my view it's not noteworthy in the ordinary sense of the word either). ^Bongo_matic 00:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may find this useful. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC) Thanks! ^Bongo_matic 22:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shortly after this article was created you had on 8 June 2010 expressed your concern about multiple issues affecting it. Those issues have since been attended to. The article is properly referenced, properly presented i.e. duly cleaned, etc; and without any doubt the subject is a notable person. A revision of your earlier opinion is now solicited. Thanks. Regards. Soni Ruchi (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better. There shouldn't be any citations to Wikipedia, however. Feel free to make any edits to maintenance templates when the issues have been addressed. Thanks for the note. ^Bongo_matic 06:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your immediate response. I have removed citations to Wikipedia. But, don't you think that now all issues stand properly addressed; in any case, editors can still continue to add more information/improve the article even after the tag is removed ? I do not think I am yet competent enough to make edits to maintenance templates. Please guide me. Thanks once again. Regards. Soni Ruchi (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has edited Horror comics, you may have an opinion on a merger proposal being discussed on its talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the guys here saw some the other day on a drive through the countryside. They were mining for coal.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. As to the article, I would think that the content ought to be integrated into a single article on illegal mining (whether on areas where no concession has been granted, or on areas where a concession has been granted to someone else). ^Bongo_matic 15:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Including Claim jumping, which redirects to squatting, which isn't really the same thing.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I had exactly the same reaction as you did here, with regard to Bulldog123's dispute with sysop Bearian. Even now, upon a re-reading, I have difficulty construing Bulldog's statement ("Many warnings? I see NO warnings aside from questions ...") any way other than how you and I read it. You effectively rebutted Bulldog's assertion. Which is a service to other editors. The problem with not rebutting such statements is that unless someone like you steps forward, other editors reading the discussion can be easily misled. So I think your rebuttal was an important one.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		Cookies!
		Thanks Bongo! Drmies (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC) has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.[reply] To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Sorry, I must have surpassed your edit summary. I did take a look to the history of the page and so about 70 or 80 edits since yesterday only and figured the template might be necessary. Sorry for the bother. Cheers, --Laveol ^T 10:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Drmies. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. What Bongo, you got a problem with my cheap-ass bourbon? Man up, and drink up! Drmies (talk) 04:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's legitimate, and legitimate. And I reinstated it. <boring>What actually happened was that I clicked on a refreshing page that was yet to reposition its scroll position upon the completion of the refresh. Where I intended to click was replaced by the rollback when it scrolled back to the position on refresh.</boring> But, yes, I do have a problem with cheap-ass bourbon. I'm just diving into some George T. Stagg, baby. Man up, pay up, and drink up yourself, tenureman! ^Bongo_matic 04:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that's what it was. I don't know what it is these days, but it's like every page needs to load twice--for instance, an edit screen pops up, single-spaced, and then it refreshes and turns up double-spaced. So stuff on the screen moves around, and I click the wrong button sometimes--though I've not hit 'rollback' yet. Oh, at Mr. Tenureman's institution they're cutting back, so I'm only teaching one class this summer (we don't get paid 12 months)--no fancy bourbon for a while. Drmies (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can sort of see where you're coming from with the removal of the post-military careers of the past officeholders (i.e. the information is irrelevant to an article on the position), but I wouldn't be honest if I didn't say I'm a bit disappointed, since the article's DYK appearance was based on a fact which was in that bit of information. Do you think there's really no way to incorporate at least that bit (Choo being Singapore's ambassador to Israel) back in? Best, Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think even leaving the post-military description in the table is too much, but since it doesn't actually add vertical length to the article, I left it in.

I suppose you could write something about holders of this post frequently being tapped for plum positions in Singapore's military/industrial/political complex (it has been reported that Israel sells significant military equipment to Singapore), but such an addition may be controversial, misinterpreted, and/or unwelcome by your employer. ^Bongo_matic 23:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bongomatic, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Health Options, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to software. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 14:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I had clumped it in with the company. ^Bongo_matic 15:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to Wikipedia, thanks for educating me on the subject.

Possibly will learn more about the topic before making future edits.

Cheers

Kannan Reddy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kannanwrites (talk • contribs) 08:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think that The P.L.A.Y. Project really belongs in the Floortime article, certainly not an entire section, it looks like more of a program based on Floortime. We have been using the Floortime approach for two years (and the missus has read quite a few of Dr. Greenspan's books), and never heard anything about The P.L.A.Y. Project, seems to be giving undue weight to a seperate secondary topic. Might be better as a see also...Just saw you had done a little work on the floortime article, thought I would bring it up.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it—I was trying to make a spammy addition a little better. ^Bongo_matic 16:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

been reading your page with all the darts accomplishments, it actually explains a lot.... anyhow, here is a link depicting a short film/commercial about another accomplished darts player. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3Dx-hri_x8 Enjoy.Turqoise127 00:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very glad to see you back on the project--had checked your edit log just a couple days ago in hopes that you were active again.

Be careful the provenance of un-sourced information on Wikipedia. That was added as a joke by someone a long time ago and was even the subject of a gleeful (but erroneous) attempt at outing me.

Happy editing, ^Bongo_matic 02:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turqoise, you'll see similar "accomplishments" in the history of my user page. I actually used to be a pretty decent darter, but that's a long time ago. Happy days to all of us, Drmies (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the erroneously placed template on Michael C. Baze. I failed to read fully the documentation for its use. Therefor I also learned a thing which makes good sense; Read the documentation. Again thanks. My76Strat (talk) 04:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I realize most users add this template with the very best of intentions. However I find it very sensationalist and patrol its inclusion regularly. Thanks for reading the edit summary and the docs! ^Bongo_matic 05:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You seem to have blanked the page Freaky Chakra (Movie), which was listed on AfD page. Anyway, I had restored it. The duplicator report showed a couple of mathcing three worded phrases which I removed. Thanks. freewheeler 12:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manorathan (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately the new editor does/did not understand the wider concerns. I have myself taken the time to address them... and have made such note on the article's talk page at Talk:Freaky Chakra (Movie). Please compare the version you tagged to the rewritten version at Talk:Freaky Chakra (Movie)/Temp to see if it might be used to overwrite the tagged version so that the copyvio tag can be removed. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, MQ. Don't know why you didn't edit in place! ^Bongo_matic 22:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only found it after it was tagged for copyvio... and following the tag's instructions, I worked in a temp page. If I was sure I could IAR and both remove the tag and replace the ragged article with my efforts, I would do so in a hot minute. What do you advise? Is boldness appropriate here? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

Given what you've already done, I think it's better to remove the history of the copyvio page. I'll try something now. ^Bongo_matic 03:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, had to remove the AFD tag you moved over. It cannot be used in a temp space. And as for moving... once the BIG copyvio tag was on, I think we need to be patient... as the tag itself states Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until an administrator or an OTRS agent has resolved this issue. I think we're stuck just waiting for an admin or someone from OTRS. I do have an idea though... we can "move" my temp page to the proper name for the article.... Freaky Chakra (film) and then simply state at the AFD that it was done to solve the AFD and copyvio concerns and suggest a redirect. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I had thought about doing this myself... but when I first clicked the proffered link on the tag on the original article, THIS is where it sent me to build the temp article. What you did is most sensible. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If an admin can come along and clean this stuff up, it will all be over, with your shiny new article closed as keep without ever having been nominated! ^Bongo_matic 04:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magic. Your help is much appreciated. :) And after the AFD closes the film will naturally have to be moved from (Movie) to (film) as suggested above per naming conventions. I'm thinking now of a suitable shared DYK... something like

Did you know ... that the 2003 V. K. Prakash film Freaky Chakra was the only time Ouseppachan composed music for a Hindi film?

Whatcha think ? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis is Tim Jenkin not notable? Three independent sources cover him and his life in detail. What other references could a short stub need?--TM 03:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your good faith attempt to work with others. Now I would like to ask you about something you said in your last comment. You said, The template is for a specific purpose, and this isn't it. Could you explain to me what you believe its purpose to be? Because it seems to me that this is the most appropriate use of it I've ever seen (most of the time I think it is pointless). HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its purpose is to identify heavily-edited articles about recently-dead people. The template's instructions are pretty clear: "it should only be used in cases where many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) are editing the article on the same day". Note that the threshold is articulated in terms of editors, not edits. This is not a trivial distinction—as you know, frequently editors make a series of edits to an article that, in reality, really are equivalent to one edit (fixing typos after introducing an error with the main edit, chopping edits up into sections to avoid the possibility of losing work, trying to keep the document open only briefly to avoid edit conflicts, etc.).

Frankly, the instructions make it clear that there are all sorts of occasions that information may be changing quickly when the template should not be applied. I don't know why {{current}} (or a new template, let's call it {{unfolding}}, that doesn't claim that the event itself is occurring, rather simply that new information may become available about a recent event) would ever be insufficient. There was a TfD discussion (I didn't opine) that concluded no prejudice against merging with {{current}}.

My feelings on the template are that it's unnecessarily sensationalistic and lurid—sort of a magnet to e-rubbernecking—so I tend to hew closely (but not strictly—if there were 80 editors within the past 24 hrs I don't think I would remove it) to the docs. ^Bongo_matic 05:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your "guidelines" there is how often would that ever happen? Maybe once a year? That ends up making that template entirely worthless, even though I would say the use was fine in that above article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't my "guidelines". They are the template's documentation. As you can see from the TfD discussion mentioned above, there are many editors who feel that the template should be deprecated, either by deletion or merger. (I am starting to come to that conclusion myself.) The fact that a template is useless unless used in a particular way (that is bad) doesn't justify using it in that bad way. 16:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

		Good Fellowship Award
		I am honored to present you with this Award of Good Fellowship for your assistance in improving the article Freaky Chakra so that it better serves the project. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Freaky Chakra (film), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 2003 Bollywood comedy drama Freaky Chakra, directed by V. K. Prakash, was the only Hindi film for which Ouseppachan composed the music? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)