User talk:Bodnotbod/Dec 2011

Proposed deletion of Hufty

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

Lacks notability. Unsourced BLP.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Exok (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the bubble tea!

Recognition is always welcome. And bubble tea is a completely new experience for me (though I expect my kids and their friends might know about it!) Thanks again and all the best with your own contributions. Nandt1 (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

re temazepam

Look closely. The huge removal was reversal of the bulk insertion of an already earlier removed edit by a now blocked IP, containing unsourced material and insidious misrepresentation of sources. The IP was evading the block and reinserting the material. The article has been vandalized repeatedly like that. My edit explained what I have done please take a look again. 70.137.130.133 (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

temazepam

I labeled the edit: Undo of a bulk edit which reinserts numerous misrepresentations of refs and destroys dozens of repair edits on this vandalism.

We have previously spent numerous hours to find the dozens of invented edits (totally unsupported) and misrepresented sources (claims of which the source says no word). See the earlier rollback by Fvasconcellos to a stable version as part of the repair edits.

Now the guy has reinserted all that from a different IP, and I have reverted it. 70.137.130.133 (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

temazepam

see here diff

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Temazepam&action=historysubmit&diff=446345021&oldid=445307699

70.137.130.133 (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Spike Milliagan article

Hiya, Thanks for the advice, I'll look in to finding some links for the information now. Blackstar111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackstar111 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Badjelly and Spike Milligan

Hi, Sorry to bother you again, but do you think I should perhaps make an article for the play Badjelly's Bad Christmas to avoid clogging up the Spike Milligan page with the plot? Blackstar111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackstar111 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello again, I'm going to take a chance and create an article because The Chickenshed Theatre company is a notable theatre company, and Jane Milligan (one of Spike Milligan's daughters and an accomplished actress) was in the play. If it's deleted, oh well, at least I tried, and then I'll go with your plan. Thanks for all this help! I'm sorry for continuously bothering you about it.

Hi again, Just to say thanks, and when I've written it I'll send you a link so you can add anything you think needs adding etc, if you feel like it.

Hello again, Does this look okay to you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Blackstar111/Badjelly%27s_Bad_Christmas

Hi Okay, thanks. Have a lovely bank holiday weekend :)

Okay, I'm going to publish it now. And sorry to hear about the cold, get well soon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackstar111 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Blackstar111 (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Chav article

Thanks for your comments. Did I do it right now.

Tel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telgo (talk • contribs) 14:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

re: 1991

Thank you so much for your review. You brought up a key point about the boredom factor. 1991 was a rather boring season sans two storms, so that does help me in terms of what I should put on FAC in the future. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your comments on my talk page. There's a very tricky line to walk with this particular article, in that the interesting storms (Bob and the Perfect Storm) have their own, detailed articles. I didn't want to give them undue weight. Oddly enough, there is more info on Bob about Pres. Bush's house being evacuated and a motorcade, but I didn't want to appear pro-Bush :P If I may, your major problem is on the storms other than Bob and the Perfect Storm. You also note that you want to elicit some emotional response, but I don't know if that's appropriate, given this is an encyclopedia. I don't want to push a certain point of view. Do you still oppose the article in its current form, after (I believe) I addressed most of your comments? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! It was a great feeling :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I edit the Turkish Wikipedia either time to time. But I would think that my English information is enough but it is said to not be enough. Also I was editing by using dictionaries...--Mustafa Bakacak (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I went to English course until May 2011. I think going again to develop. It became good that you have said that my English is not good enough. I am going to develop English of mine.--Mustafa Bakacak (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Jack Kerouac

Thanks for reminding me to provide refs. i had created the article on the forthcoming film, which had refs, and in my haste forgot that each article needs refs for each stated fact, even if the articles linked to have adequate refs. i have added 2 refs which source my addition. I am trying to be more reliable in sourcing such additions designed to link to new articles. thanks for your diligence. there is hope for me yet.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion

Thank you for your suggestion, I will consider it. I have contributed to Wikipedia in English almost 2000 edits (almost 1,000 unique pages edits). Some of them are new articles, such as:

• 3G (countries)
• ASEAN Exchanges
• Indonesia Seven Summits Expedition
• etc.

I will be glad, if you visit them and make any improvements. Thank you in advance for it.Gsarwa (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi! There is an important detail. In English, every word has very meaning. I use dictionary. Dictionaries I use, however, are Google Translate and Zargan.com. You think, how are these dictionaries dictionaries I wonder? --Mustafa Bakacak (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

How many level there is while learning English? That I know is five levels. I have learnt until the fifth level English. But not enough... --Mustafa Bakacak (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

"'He refrained his promise'! 'We do not say anything about this unpleasant and ugly topic.' Poet Küçük İskender met with his fellows in İstanbul Modern garden as guest of conversation set 'Without Refraining Your Promise'. Küçük İskender who became guest of skillful reviewers Semih Gümüş and Ömer Türkeş tells his unusual literature. He has stopped without answer questions relative to news issuing about him on an internet site before the conversation." You think, is it said I could tell correctly the writing? I want to take idea from you. --Mustafa Bakacak (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you write to me? --Mustafa Bakacak (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you recommend an article or articles on way I can translate? --Mustafa Bakacak (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Miliband

During his time as an MP, Miliband has consistently voted with the party line in over 1,600 votes. [1]

Hi, where is this supported in the external? Please point me to it, where is the party line discussed - what is the party line? . I think the public whip comments on its own figures that they are easily misinterpreted - can you find this claim written in a reliable external? Also if you can't find discussion of this claim in a reliable external then what is notable about it? thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. OK, I take your point. I've edited the sentence at Ed M to reflect what public whip says. Dunno where the previous editor got the 1,600 figure from. Sorry about that. --bodnotbod (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Your edit still doesn't show notability. and doesn't address the party line issue. Isn't it normal that MPs vote with their party? It is only notable if they are rebels? Have you found any references to this factiod in reliable externals to assert its notability? Off2riorob (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The notability policy is used to determine whether an article can exist on Wikipedia or not. It doesn't cover whether a fact within an article is or is not to be included. I don't see any harm in mentioning his voting record. Why are you so keen not to have his loyalty affirmed in the article? And before you pose the opposite question to me (ie, why do I want it included?) I'd point out that I didn't add the information in the first place; someone else did. I just thought I'd rescue it from oblivion as it seems to me a pretty harmless yet informative piece of information. --bodnotbod (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Content still needs editorial control as to if it is a notable detail worthy of addition, I did not mention the wikipedia notability policy. As you have not found references to this detail in reliable externals, it appears to need a factoid alert - The leader of the Labour party is not a Labour party rebel. - David Cameron I imagine always votes with the Conservative party line - of course he does. Off2riorob (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Just out of interest, how are you defining "factoid"? A number of definitions seem available. --bodnotbod (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

A valueless piece of data. Off2riorob (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I agree. If the public doesn't realise what unquestioning, lap-dog-like drones leading politicians are by now, no amount of reading Wikipedia articles will drum it into them. So, you're right, education can perform no function here. --bodnotbod (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

There it is, your position/reason/desire for inclusion - you want to show that in your opinion, Ed Miliband is in your words an "unquestioning, lap-dog-like drone" - Because he supports the policies of the party he leads, he supports the policies he writes. Off2riorob (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

One of the things I would like to change about wikipedia is the sheer time waste of such discussion as this. Sometimes I think as an individual (and I see many experienced contributors take this position) - don't revert anything, don't bother discussing anything that is replaced after you remove it. You might be right - all politicians are unquestioning lap dogs I don't actually care if they are. I was drawn to the content by a GA review comment and after looking at it in my efforts to achieve GA status removed it. Sometimes it all seems such a waste of time here. Anyway, if you have helped me realize that then the discussion will have been worthwhile - regards. Off2riorob (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Your warning

I'm afraid this warning was unwarranted. Unlike the IP, I have discussed the issue at length (see the archives). I'm fairly certain the IP editor is the same IP editor who has been making that edit for months. You should also note that the IP editor has begun trying to suggest that Harman was Deputy Leader for Tony Blair, despite the fact that is nonsense and that a ref is already included contradicting him or her. I have tried to engage with the IP editor at other IP addresses and at the new one.[2][3] Next time, before simply giving a blanket warning to both sides, it might be helpful to make sure you know the facts. -Rrius (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

We tried to start a civil discussion and debate on Talk:Harriet Harman which ridiculed by User:Rrius. I and other editors, have got multiple sources across the Internet, including Harriet Harman herself, backing the cause that she is shadow deputy prime minister. On the Tony Blair point, Harriet Harman took over the deputy leadership of the Labour Party when Tony Blair was still in power. It was three days before Tony Blair handed over to Gordon Brown, though to be fair Brown was Leader-elect. Brown gave her the Commons Leadership and the Eqalities brief afterwards. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6234692.stm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.221.67 (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

We had a discussion some time ago, but the IP editor or editors continued to edit war despite the discussion. An RFC would have been pointless since the problem wasn't that we couldn't get consensus, but that the IP wouldn't respect it. -

Harriet Harman

hey, I saw your post in the Harriet Harman talk history section of the article and wondered if we might collaborate in getting consensus in the addition of Harmans role at the P.I.E? Here is the talk history link, pro Harman editors even sanitized the talk history PIE section header! Twobells (talk) 10:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Mystery

Please solve this mystery if you can...

On September 23rd, traffic to Portal:James Bond doubled, and has stayed at the new level since then. I can't figure out what happened.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Portal%3AJames_Bond

Traffic to Outline of James Bond stayed the same (though it was at the higher-level already), which leads me to suspect changes made somewhere in Wikipedia.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Outline%20of%20James_Bond

I'd like to find out what happened, in case it reveals helpful link placement tips that can double the traffic to outlines too!

I look forward to your reply on my talk page. The Transhumanist 23:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: You can browse outlines at Portal:Contents/Outlines.