User talk:Whpq/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

Feedback?

Given your work with copyrights and the fact that I have indirectly mentioned you (by link, anyway, on the talk page), I wanted to let you know that I'm working on a potential WikiProject for Copyright Cleanup issues. I do not know if there is enough community interest in such a thing to make it worthwhile, but I figure it's worth a shot. :) I would greatly appreciate any feedback on the page that you can offer. In all its infant glory, it is here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd be glad to help out. My "work" with copyrights is more of a byproduct of my work on the Wikification Wikiproject. A lot of the completely unformatted articles are cut and paste jobs. I'll put forth any comments on the proposed project's talk page. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks so much. :) I appreciate any input. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know, it's moved. It's now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup. Also, of course, if you see something that needs fixing on the project page, you are more than welcome to have at it directly. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

BTS Group AB Entry

I have made a few attemps at modifying the BTS Group AB entry. I compared my entry to what is in the IBM entry and do not feel that I have over stepped boundries on what is a press release versus an acceptable entry. Please advise. Thanks.

Rommin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.24.34 (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The best place to discuss this would be on the article talk page, Talk:BTS Group AB as this directly relates the article contents and article development. -- Whpq (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Invertzoo forwarding a note from Anna Frodesiak working on the Cs

Sorry to interrupt you and I hope you don't mind if I ask you to take a very quick look at Anna's cleaned-up articles and see if they seem good to you. Could you also tell her what to do about the double redirects? I have no idea. Many thanks on behalf of the gastropod project for all of your hard work!

"Almost all of the 100+ Cs were fine. Five were strange. There, as usual, the black box told me to follow the link to the temp page. At the temp page, I encountered another black box directing me to a \temp\temp page. So I didn't do those because it would not let me save the page, I think. Crosseola bollonsi, Crosseola cuvieriana, Crosseola errata, Crosseola favosa, Cytora pallida. Thanks. Please check a sample or two of my work and assign me some more if I did an okay job.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)"

Thanks again Whpq, best, Invertzoo (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have spotchecked Anna's versions of the articles. They look fine. As for the oddball ones with the black box, it looks like Anna created a version with the copyrighted material removed, but forgot to remove the copyright violation template when she did it. All that is needed is to go to the temp page and remove the copyright violation notice. Note that I have the cleanup page watchlisted so feel free to post questions there. I will see that new material is posted and read it. And by centralising the discussion, others can benefit. For example, any other other editor running into the black box situation as Anna would also see the answer. -- Whpq (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much Whpq! Yes I will post this exchange on the cleanup page, and try to locate all relevant discussions there. Invertzoo (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

King's Kids Johannesburg

I have left u a message RobScheurwater (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Maiden voyage

The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
For your stellar organization and willingness to help at the Gastropod copyvio cleanup. Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


Even though the massive cleanup at WikiProject Gastropod is not finished, I wanted you to be the first to have this brand new barnstar for your outstanding volunteerism there. I think it's great the way you dove right in. I also am much impressed with the order you've added to the process. :) Go you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The chicken soup

Thanks so much Whpg, I ate the soup and it was delicious; it was just what I needed. In fact, many thanks to you all round, you sure deserve that clean-up Barnstar! Invertzoo (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Streets of Buckhead2.jpeg

As an FYI, you can tag images like this (where the source is someone other than the uploader, and it is tagged with a free license tag but no evidence is provided) as {{subst:npd}}, rather than bringing them to FFD. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know that. Another tidbit learned. -- Whpq (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


Jeppe High School for Boys

Dude please use your brain Jeppe_High_School_for_Boys&diff=278393908&oldid=278393219 References and links wasn't and isn't part of Prominent Old Boys section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.250.126 (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I never said it was. The whole Prominent Old Boys list section is messed up. That's why I tagged it for cleanup. The external links and references are set to the correct heading levels. -- Whpq (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
K, but RobScheurwater did that already in edit [1] and you undid his edit even thought his edit was right and you called it Assume good faith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.250.126 (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The changes made there put the referenced and external links sections at the wrong heading levels. They should be level 2 as noted by "==". It's the other sections headers and lists that need to be fixed. That's why I added a cleanup tag there. -- Whpq (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Onassis

Just to notify you that even with a significant delay I offered a review to the article.--Yannismarou (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

{{user delete}}

Thought you might want to consider adding yourself to Category:Deletionist Wikipedians. Dandv (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Now why would I want to do such a thing? -- Whpq (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Violation?

Please advise which link violates copyright.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lewis_Perdue&action=history

Is putting the copyrighted source reference in a footnote the acceptable way to do this? If so, I apologize for being a Wiki newbie.

FYI, article as posted,

1. Is linked to a copyrighted article 2. Is incorrect. Random House sued me. My resulting counter-claim was the only legal method to defend myself.

Thank you for your help.

Lew

Lperdue (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Lewis Perdue Bio

I'd be very grateful for any comments you may have on this draft:

Lperdue/DraftBio

Thank you very much.

Lperdue (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Kids In Need Foundation

What is not neutral about this [Kids in Need Foundation] page?? Just because I'm writing about a non-profit organization does not mean that I don't have a neutral view here. Also, everything is referenced on the page - what do you want referenced more?Buhealex01 (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfree images

Thanks for listing some images at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 March 17. Did you know that there is a simpler and quicker option for dealing with some images like this? If an image is tagged with a free license tag and sourced to someone other than the uploader, but there is no evidence that the given source agreed to release the image under the specified license, you can tag the image as {{subst:npd}} ("No permission" in Twinkle). It's faster than PUF (7 days instead of 14) and doesn't require typing a rationale. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

KIN feedback

I've changed a few things at Kids In Need Foundation that you had previously pointed out, and was hoping that you could tell me what needs to still be wikified, if anything, and if there are enough third party sources. Thank you Buhealex01 (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions and discussions on article development should be posted at the article's talk page. I will put my comments there. -- Whpq (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States

I altered the text in an attempt to steer from the "news release" style. Please review at your convenience and if you agree with my change, please remove the news release reference. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.113.17 (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

rage quit

Please contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 April 7#Rage quit → Multiplayer video game. Uncle G (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Scott Pelley

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

Continuing in the same vein, Whpq, I just did a quick check about some of the editors to this article. One of them identifies himself as Pelley's "assistant" and the ISP of the anonymous IP that reverted you is in New York. Isn't 60 Minutes filmed there? I suspect there are some conflicts of interest going on. Just ta warn ya! ;) --Christine (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit - TEAMS Designdesignerx (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a newbie to wikipedia. I tried formatting that darned logo and finally gave up and just made it smaller. Thanks for making it better! DesignerXdesignerx (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. For future reference, if you are stuck, you can always put {{help}} on your talk page and somebody will be by to render assistance, or you can ask your question at Wikipedia:Help desk. -- Whpq (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Dump leaching

Per Template:Unreferenced, unreferenced template are not supposed to be applied to stub articles. Moreover, I recommend you read WP:Do not template the regulars. Wizard191 (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please point out where it is documented that an unreferenced tag should not be applied to a stub? Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia and unreferenced articles should me marked for improvement. As for the essay on not templating the regulars, I'm aware of it, and I'm not necessarily in agreement with it.-- Whpq (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Near the top it states: "Consider not adding this template to extremely short articles."
As for templating the regulars, that is borderline uncivilized. We are all here to better Wikipedia and the only way that can be done is by working together. Templating me is not a gesture of trying to work together. I advise you to rethink your POV. Wizard191 (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I apologize for messaging you with a template. However, I do disagree with the removal of the unreferenced tag as the article, though short, provides a description of the process and provide no information with which to verify the article content. -- Whpq (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
In order to resolve the issue I've just added a ref to the article. Thank you for compromising on the templating issue. Happy editing! Wizard191 (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

St. Edmund's Anglican Church

Thank you, first of all, for reading and critiquing the article. We understand that the "Declaration" is rather, well, declarative and touches upon a number of controversial issues from the church's perspective. We also understand that Wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor a discussion forum for doctrine, dogma, or religious proclevities. The long, "Declaration" is included, however, because St. Edmund's is the first parish in Wisconsin to articulate these specific issues and the "Declaration" has been repeated in the press around the world. Over two hundred and fifty parishes have departed the Episcopal Church in the last five years but few of them have "laid out" there issues in a clear, concise document. The declaration has become a "stand along" document" that is quoted by a number of commentators and pundits on every possible side of the issues mentioned. So often in issues of contemporary church history the facts are outlined but the heart of the matter is not discussed. Each point in the Declaration has a reference in current Episcopal Church policy and has ramnifications for the wider Anglican Communion (70 million Christians) - we believe - therefore - that it is a unique contribution to the body of knowledge gathered in Wikipedia. We were not trying to "slip in" a statement of belief or policy, but we honestly, sincerely thought that the Declaration adds greatly to understanding the real issues that consume this segment of Protestantism. We are not suggesting that St. Edmund's Declaration will become part of the eternal body of famous church documents, but it is certainly quoted often in discussions from Africa to southeast Asia. Thank you again. Heligeweihe (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Heligeweihe

Paul Starling Article

Thank you for the Welcome Whpq, as you can tell I am unsure of procedures however I don't remember removing users comments from the Articles for Deletion section; I did though, remove the notice from the article itself as I was under the mistaken impression that the issue had been resolved by the administrator who stated that Notability had been established. I thought that the issue was closed accordingly. No-one made any comments on the AfD page either so then I wad doubly sure. The Admin user involved has been very helpful and I was sure that the article complied with guidelines and could not understand why the 1st user Tarheel95 nominated the article twice for deletion in the first place, after Admin Werespeil user stated to 'Keep'. Tarheel seemed inexperienced perhaps so it was my mistake, shall know better next time. Any further advice on what I need to do next would be appreciated as not much interest from elsewhere.

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shizuoka budoka (talk • contribs) 10:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Post

Hello, Would you mind signing this post? Thanks! smooth0707 (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Re. Removal of Message Box

On 03:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC) you said: "I've removed the message box you added to the article. The message does not belong in the article. If you wish, you may add that information to the article's talk page. However, a subject's unwillingness to have an article about herself on Wikipedia is irrelevant. -- Whpq"

  • Fine with me. Biographer Wikipédien aux pieds nus 04:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Planet Sub

I simply haven't done the research on the article because there has never been a need to..no one has ever said anything about the article in four years..and I've never really understood the Reference formatting. However, I devoted my morning to learning the formatting and got some inlines in the article. Coincidentally enough, the outside resources that I used were the exact same ones you found.

Anyways, I just thought you should know that it wasn't poor behavior..just lack of knowledge. I would have rather been notified that another wikipedian could have helped me rather than just nominated it for deletion. Flibbert (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I apologize for being a bit snarky. However your response in the AFD didn't really communicate what you did above. If you do need additional help in referencing, let me know. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

what's wrong?

Please tell, what's wrong with my added link? Georgiani (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The link you added is contrary to guidelines for external links, WP:EL. Specifically, it is a link to a book sales site which constitutes a link "to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services". -- Whpq (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm novice in wikipedia

Hello, I'm novice in wikipedia. I haven't read any policies, but tried to add my links correctly to same themes. It is not spam, just an interesting links to Georgian web-site, where electronic editions, calligraphy works, manuscript book, orthodox icons and other intellectual works are submitted. Just think, in the "Calligraphy" article of wikipedia nothing told about georgian calligraphy. Also, nothing about manuscript books or modern Georgian iconography. After my links I plan to add some articles to wikipedia, because I found very poor info in some themes. Articles about Elena Akhvlediani, David Kakabadze, Niko Pirosmani etc. can become rich. I finished to add links and do not plan to add more, as I'm not a spammer. I thought every my link will be interesting for readers. If we follow any external link from wikipedia, we'll find sales pages at corresponding sites, but it is not a reason to delete this links from wikipedia and to call their authors - spammers. If you know the more correct way how to add my links to wikipedia, please advise me. I'm be glad to follow your instructions and see my links to many interesting Georgian web-sites at wikipedia. After I'll try to add some useful articles. Georgiani (talk) 08:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

As I've already mentioned, the policy on external links is at WP:EL. Rather than jut adding links which will (and has) made you look like a spammer, I suggest that you add content to the articles instead. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Restricted Access Barrier System

I have nominated Restricted Access Barrier System, 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/Restricted Access Barrier System. 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. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Right now it looks like a dictionary definitionand a bad one at that, since it doesn't really explain what kind of installation it is and what it does. Could make it into a stub and add the references you mentioned in the AFD? - Mgm|(talk) 08:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I expanded it a little bit. -- Whpq (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions, please?

Instead of the two of us bickering in an AFD, I'll just ask what you see as the correct procedure to achieve the goal: the only thing permitted to exist at Anti-Love Song should be a redirect to the parent album, and any effort to undo that (short of a change in actual circumstances, such as it charting) should be prevented. Deletion followed installation of a protected redirect is the only way I know to achieve that goal.—Kww(talk) 17:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Content disputes should be handled as per WP:DISPUTE. Sorry if I was snippy. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess we disagree as to whether it's a content dispute. Failing WP:NSONGS and WP:N is a reason for deletion, and I think that's a suitable topic for AFD. I think of the existence of a redirect as a separate issue, simply as a navigational aid. Redirecting the article effectively achieves that, and, if other editors follow guidelines, it achieves the same net effect quickly and easily. No one has put forth an argument for keeping the article, and the editor who undoes the redirects doesn't respond to messages on his talk page except to anonymously scrawl obscenities on my talk page. Deleting the article is within the guidelines and is just one step in dealing with Yamh91's disruptive editing.—Kww(talk) 17:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Then I guess we can agree to disagree. I don't see any need to put this through an AFD when any editor can create the redirect, and the need to make the redirect "stick" is a content dispute. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Cal Con

Hi. When I looked at the AfD, it appeared that "delete" and "keep" sides were fairly evenly split, with no compelling consensus to close definitively from either side; therefore, I defaulted it to "no consensus". If you decide to take it to DRV, that's certainly your...well, maybe "right" is the wrong word, but I think you get what I mean. I hope that clears things up a bit. One two three... 14:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I was going to bring that AfD up this morning, but you beat me to the punch. Thanks, I will weigh in on it. Cheers, --kelapstick (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Kirk Fox

Inre this AfD, I have been able to source the article to show meeting WP:ENTERTAINER. Its late, and past my bedtime... but I believe per this that the article can easily be further expanded and sourced. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I have responded at the AfD and just hitting a few highlights, believe I was able to show a few examples to address your questions and explain how guideline accepts the lesst-that-substantial yet more-than-trival sources for such. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Tor

Hiya. Copy-pasted from AMiB's talk page, as he said the exact same thing:

Fair enough! I was going on appearances of the website (shoddy AfD research, in my Wikipedia?). The website has a bit of a phony-baloney "Joomla Community" feel to it which gives an impression of a walled-garden sort of publishing house - not quite vanity, in that they do have editorial standards, but those standards basically amount to "is <author> one of 'ours'?". Like a publishing version of the Heritage Foundation or what have you. However, lest there be any confusion, I defer to your knowledge, and will strike the corresponding AfD statement strike that bit about striking the AfD bit, as the AfD has alreday closed.

Thank you for you help

Thank you very much for your help cleaning up my page ATG Stores. Thanks!

--Morganeason (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2009(PST)

You are welcome. Wikipedia markup and the manual of style can be quite daunting. I'd like to commend you for including references in your article. I wish more article started out with them. Cheers! -- Whpq (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Whpq thank you for your help yesterday. I know you are an experienced editor and I'm sure you are quite busy but if you have any suggestions to help me out how I could deal with this editor who appears to be just trying to delete my first article I would appericate it. I'm sorry I don't know how to link the URL properly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Brianhe Thank you for what ever help you can provide. Morganeason (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your help I appreciate your constructive feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morganeason (talk • contribs) 18:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
There is no attempt to delete your article, although that may appear to be the case. Article improvement tags for notability and reading like an advertisement have been applied to the article. These problems may eventually lead to deletion if they are not corrected. However, these tags are meant to draw attention to deficiencies in the article that need to be addressed. In reading the article, I would tend to agree with the tagging. I've already added my commentary on notability to Talk:ATG Stores. The talk page for the article is the appropriate venue for disussing article improvement, and I encourage you to post any questions and comments about article improvement there so it can be seen by a wider editting audience than my talk page would would likely only be seen by me. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for all your help. My apologies for cluttering up your talk page and asking for help on it. Please feel free to remove our conversation to clean up the mess I have left here. Morganeason (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amazon Kindle Content Sources

In the current discussion as to whether or not to delete Amazon Kindle Content Sources, you supported the deletion of the article. I have since cleaned up the article, noticeably removing external links and adding an "Available titles" column. With these changes in place, I wondered whether you would like to reconsider your opinion. Thanks! Greg Tyler (t • c) 09:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

ATG Stores

Hi Whpq, I've added some new articles suggestions on the discussion page I'd like to get your feedback on to see if you think it adds to the notability. Thanks! -- Morganeason (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Chen Shi Zheng edits

The material on the Chen Shi Zheng website is quite wrong again. Even the Chinese wording is wrong. I had corrected the libelous material with wording sent to me by Mr. Chen, himself. What seems to be copyright protected material that I used were sentences he has also submitted for other bios. Thanks Karen Kane —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karenkane2 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Then permission to use this text under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license needs to be demonstated. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information. Aside from this, there is also an issue of conflict of interest in what is essentially editting his own article. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wal-Mart (disambiguation) at DR

Just letting you know that the discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart (disambiguation) (3rd nomination) has been listed for deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 15. You may be interested in commenting.Tatterfly (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

More Than Weird

Hi! I wrote a page about a young adult novel called more than weird. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_than_weird. Could you edit it or clean it up or wikifying it? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Rodolfo Valentin article

I have fixed all the links for verification in each citation in this article. Can you please remove the sign asking for to fix them? ( I am not doing it because I don't know if I am allowed to do it, even after I fixed them)--thank you!jormarie 22:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodoval (talk • contribs)

The references need to be independently reviewed. The tag should stay until that is done. -- Whpq (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding that I did it without any bad intention. What I don't understand is most of the people voted to "keep" Rodolfo Valentin article,why now is placed the tag that reads " written like an advertisement"...if you analize the text itself does not have references to advertisement. What probably creates that feeling is the reason that Rodolfo takes care of so many important people, very famous people, that makes it sound like an advertisement. Users should identify that. Am I wrong?. thank you again71.190.77.213 (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. This is what makes the article look like an advertisement. And it seems to me that almost all of the contributors to that article have a conflict of interest as they appear to be either the subject himself or people associated with him. -- Whpq (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I was comparing the words and phrases included in the article with the ones mentioned in the wikipedia peacock terms. "Their inclusion in this list does not mean they should be avoided, simply that they must be used appropriately" I think ( it is only my point of view) that the article is conforming between those parameters. Also, it has been corrected several times by long time editors and administrators of wikipedia back in 2007-- for what I see, since then,very few changes has been done at the article.68.161.91.72 (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Tereza Elizarova

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Transity (talk • contribs) 16:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

DOA

Since your last view and post of the article DOA it has had some reliable and useful sources including statistics from Alexa, Big boards and Wolfram alpha. Award listings on the BBC website and also nominations in Knowledge Magazine, not to mention being mentioned on the UK's Teletext website and The Independant newspaper's online article.

Afd:First Responder

I've answered some of your concerns at this articles deletion nomination page. Hope they shed some light on why it is there and I didn't just do it myself. Frmatt (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Being new to "Editing User Talk", you'll have to forgive me for not knowing how to navigate through the procedures. I am most anxious to have a conversation on this and to resolve the matter. Where do I look for your reply and how do move forward? hochadler email: hochadler@msn.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hochadler (talk • contribs) 22:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I apologize...I forgot to sign the message I just sent. I repeat: Not having experience in navigating through Wikipedia, I was quite lost in knowing how to properly communicate with you regarding the Mauser HSc text. I am most anxious to discuss the revision problem and get matters resolved. Where do I look for your reply...and how do we communicate directly? hochadler email: hochadler@msn.com Hochadler (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The article's talk page is at Talk:Mauser HSc. It is also acessible from the article's page when you click on the "discussion" tab. I encourage you to explain the perceived inaccuracies, and the necessary corrections there. -- Whpq (talk) 02:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Mauser HSc

How do I reach anyone regarding the comments I've submitted regarding the Mauser HSc topic? Where do I begin to look in the Wikipedia universe??? Even in response to this message... I turn to you (Whpq) because you are tagged as being involved in this matter. I would appreciate receiving some guidance. Hochadler (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Start by expressing your concerns on the current state of the article at Talk:Mauser HSc. What is it about the article that needs to be changed? -- Whpq (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

My rejected corrections/revisions to MAUSER HSc text

Regarding the article on Mauser HSc, I was the original author, with two of the listed references being mine and accepted as exhibits on a recognized gun site.

In addition to the arbitrary revision made in wording and text sequence, here are a few key errors:

- Transitional changes during the wartime production of this pistol have been noted as variations which are identified as falling within specific serial number ranges. The incorrect revision states that these variations fall within specific Werhmacht purchase orders which is simply not the case. The term Wehrmacht is incorrect as the pistols focused upon for the bulk of this unfactual revision were for the Army(Heer)procured pistols. - The commercial proofs on these pistols are not a Crown/N, but an Eagle/N (factory firing proof) which superceded the former proof by 1940 when production of this pistol began. This would be very clear to anyone holding or knowing anything about the wartime HSc pistols.

There are text re-arrangements, subjective word changes and omissions from the original article. In view of the stringent requirements by Wikipedia, I simply cannot understand how this unresearched and erroneous revision could have been accepted. Hochadler (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above, the place to discuss the changes would be at the article's talk page, Talk:Mauser HSc. As such, I am moving the discussion there. -- Whpq (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Mauser HSc

I really would appreciate your help. I see you moved my comments to the Mauser HSc page. How does the dialogue continue now? And with whom? It's not an "editing war", I'm simply trying to correct an incorrect previous revision. Why didn't that reviser have to justify/prove his revision? Hochadler (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Trying to improve Rodolfo Valentin article

The head of the article reads: "This article may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text. Please help improve this article by checking for inaccuracies. (help, talk, get involved!) (July 2009)" I am trying to help...get involved, but every time I add a good legitimate link, from a good source like "The New York Times" it is removed, why?

For example in the parraph I am trying to add, I am showing as a verification for the Long Island Spa,an article from "Fox news", with comments about the Spa.

In television shows, I am adding the link to TELEMUNDO CHANNEL 47.

As an actor, I am adding as a link for verification an article from "The New York Times", reading parraphs as: ON the sweeping stone terrace of his Hewlett Bay Park home, Rodolfo Valentin was playing Rodolfo Valentin, flamboyant hairdresser and money launderer.

The parraph I am trying to add reads:

In 1984, Rodolfo immigrated to Long Island, New York and opened Rodolfo Valentin salon & Spa[1] He was featured in magazines and television shows such as Telemundo [2] and as an actor, starring in the role of hairdresser, in the independent movie directed by filmmaker Hustin Hova[3]

Why it is removed after I have added it?jormarie 17:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodoval (talk • contribs)

The appropriate place to discuss these issues would be on the article talk page, talk:Rodolfo Valentin. -- Whpq (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad

It is a fact that the text for article National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad was largely based on its homepage, it is not a copyright violation, it can be termed as a mild form of replication based on a Primary source. Anyhow the article has to be based on a verifiable referable source and as per wiki policy no original research is allowed. Therefore this article about this institute was based largely on the information provided by NIN site and ICMR homepage. Also please note that no images was used by me in this article, the image about Pasteur Institute is taken from Wiki Commons. Hope this calms your fears regarding copyright violations Sarvagyana guru (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr Jones

Hi,

You appear to have deleted a page I put up for the artist Dr Jones. The page now redirects to another page once more. According to the message, there was some copyright contravention, but I do not see how this is the case. Could you elaborate? I am going to put the page back if there is no reason for the deletion.

Thanks Tetrapylocotomist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetrapyloctomist (talk • contribs) 17:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not delete the page Dr Jones, but it was redirected as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr Jones. The primary problem is that the artist in question does not meet notability criteria for inclusion. As for the copyright contravention, the material was copied verbatim from http://www.drjonesmusic.co.uk/gpage1.html which is in contravention of Wikipedia's policy on copyright. -- Whpq (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Mauser HSc

ATTN: Whpq Please notice that I have added four key published references at the conclusion of the article on Mauser HSc. These are the well recognized authorities on the Mauser HSc...and the basis of the data I'm trying to correct. Kindly tell me what more I can do to to enable me to correct the errors made by a previous "revision". AND WHERE DO I LOOK FOR YOUR REPLY? Thank you! Hochadler Hochadler (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

THE ARTICLE TALK PAGE IS WHERE THESE DISCUSSION SHOULD TAKE PLACE. Now please stop typing in all caps. -- Whpq (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible sock puppetry?

Hi Whpq, a few days ago I proposed the merger of the Sofia's Hair 4 Health and the Rodolfo Valentin articles. I have received opposition form three users who I beleive are controlled by a single account, Rodoval to be exact. I'm going to start an investation but first just want your second opinion, (An unbiased quick look, my judgement may be clouded).
Just suspicious because the two other accounts Susy parker and Nicole reutman both were created within seven minutes of each other and have really only edited on the Rodolfo Valentin and the Sofia's Hair 4 Health articles. In particular jumping to Rodovals support to oppose the Rodolfo Valentin article deletion, and since have joined forces to oppose my merger view.
Would appreciated your help, --RavensFists (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I must admit that I've had suspicions that these accounts are related. They may possibly be sockpuppets, but my guess would be that they are distinct individuals who have been asked to create accounts for the purpose of editing the Valentin article. If you didn't already know, there was this investigation Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Justice all the way which along with all the POV edits on the Valentin article indicate that there is a concerted effort on the part of people with conflict of interest to puff up the article. I don't know that this is enough to start a sockpuppet investigation. You may want to just ask an admin. -- Whpq (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, reading the sockpuppetry investigation on justice all the way it does share similarities with Rodoval's current activity, editing on the Rodolfo Valentin article in particular and having two other accounts as support, Ralicia and Pampita aka Susy parker and Nicole reutman. (Those two support accounts being similiar in edits and user page layout as well). Of note was Pigman's claim in the investigation that justice all the way is Jorge Perez, Valentin's business patner, as I have the suspicion that Rodaval is actually Rodolfo Valentin himself.
However I'm also not really certain about the conditions needed for starting an investigation so will follow your advice and just request assistance from an admin.
Thanks, --RavensFists (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the various accounts who !voted to keep Rodolfo Valentin in the recent AfD, I suspect they are all the same person. Well, except for you. I've opened a checkuser/sockpuppet investigation here. This is just a courtesy notification. It doesn't involve you but I thought you might be interested. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 00:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
FYI, the sockpuppet/CheckUser investigation came back positive: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rodoval/Archive. Perhaps you might be interested in stripping some of the puffery from the Rodolfo Valentin article? Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 16:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I was going to do a more detailed comb through the article. I'm still not happy about the sourcing so I will be reviewing it again. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Striking out my vote

Hi there. You canceled my vote on Abdul Majeed Khan Marwat. I thought it was relisted by King of ♥ ♦ ♣ for a more detailed and thorough discussion. Its my bad if the earlier votes are included (in that case I would like to delete my repeated vote) otherwise please let my vote be counted in this relisting. Thanks.-- MARWAT  11:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

AFD is not actually a vote. There is no need to "vote" again after a relisting although you are free to make additional comments. -- Whpq (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I am deleting my additional comments though. -- MARWAT  12:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Not me but Administrator

It was not me who was willing to re-nominate it but the Administrator suggested who earlier concluded the discussion.

Regards, --LineofWisdom (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who said what to whom and when. But since you submitted the article for Deletion Review, then you should wait for that review to complete before rushing off to initiate yet another deletion discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Why are the administrators adivising suggesting me wrong things? They said that I could re-nominate it any time. Otherwise, I myself, never want it to be re-nominated. Thoug I have been facing biased attitude by many operators / administrators, I still think that I will get justice with the article at its review. Regards, --LineofWisdom (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
You should ask the administrators. But it seems to me that you've gone off in several different directions providing insufficient information. It appears that you submitted a request for deletion review, and then had a dicussion with Julian Colton where you didn't tell him that you had submitted a request for deletion review so he was unaware of that when he replied to you. -- Whpq (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


You are totally wrong, infact talking on whatever you are assuming. this might be happening as you are taking me a negative one and have no time to read out. The administrator, before suggesting / guiding me for re-nomination has alerady answered / discussed at the Deletions' review page. --LineofWisdom (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The deletion review page is an expression of each participant's opinion. It isn't guidance for you to immediately renominate the article for immediate deletion. When the DRV is closed, it will have a statement of action per Wikipedia:Deletion review. If you have questions for specific administrators, then you are free to ask them. I can't speak for them. -- Whpq (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
That's like a good boy. As you can't speak for them you also cannot talk or create / delete for me. Anyhow, thanks for your help. I would note it, as I have stron intention to remain a good-faith user. --LineofWisdom (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikify tag

I'm not being critical of your revert of my tag :) , but how can sentences like "What we have here is the soft/loud juxtapose, the thrashy, powerful, yet melodic guitar playing, and the gut wrenching honesty sung in both quiet whispers and aggravated screaming," not need to be wikified? Falling Forward....
"References needed" is alright, I just thought the Wikify tag implied that plus the fact that the prose needed to be "encyclopedified."

Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 20:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikify is about formatting the article so it properly laid out and contains wikilinks to other articles. You're right that prose is a bit dodgy. The {{tone}} tag is what you're looking for I think. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Your comment at an AfD

Hello, and thank you for commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/60 Minutes and the Assassination of Werner Erhard. You raised a valid point regarding a possible merge into the article about the author, however the author is also non-notable and fails WP:NOTE (lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject), and I have since also nominated that for deletion as well. Perhaps you may wish to revisit your position? Thank you for your time and for participating in the discussion, Cirt (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

An update: Regarding your comment If the author article is deleted, then this goes to. If the author's article survives AFD, then it can be merged. - The related AfD you had mentioned at the above AfD (on the author, Jane Self) is unanimous to delete at this point in time. Cirt (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind, the result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't understand why you're trying to delete the article of a person who is growing in the music bussiness. I think we all have the opportunity to grow and the people know about other artists. This artist is real and you can go to reverbnation or myspace accounts. Think abouut this better. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.79.46 (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If you, or anybody can demonstrate how he meets the inclusion criteria, I would be more than happy to withdraw my nomination for deletion. But if all that can be documented is from profiles from myspace and reverbnation, then I don;t see how he meets the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Order (of a computation)

Too late for me to reply on that AfD, but the definition you had in mind is covered in the dab Order#Computer science. Pcap ping 18:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I was are the topic is covered in computational complexity and Big O notation. -- Whpq (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


Proposed deletion of Remote Area Broadcasting Services

The article Remote Area Broadcasting Services has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Remote Area Broadcasting Services – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.

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. PhilKnight (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I am not the actual original author. This article was created to split the material out from RABS which had multiple uses of RABS int he article. I've notified User:Kevleyski who truly originated the article but the user does not appear to be currently active as his last edit is from 2007. -- Whpq (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Whpq, thanks for explaining. PhilKnight (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


Deletion review for Kady Malloy

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kady Malloy. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Facha93 (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


Deletion review for Kady Malloy

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kady Malloy. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Facha93 (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Advice/Help

I was recently engaged in a edit war on the Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari with a particular user, User:Rob lockett. I followed your edits to the Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani in which you removed material this same user copied from another website. I then realized that this user was doing the same thing on the page I mentioned, Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari; he copied the material he added in his edits from this website: [[2]]. It seems obvious that this would fall under the same rule, however, I am hesitant to remove it myself because the outcome of that edit war was that we would discuss matters first on the talk page. It seems that this user's section should be removed without discussion. What do you think? Supertouch (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverting due to a copyright violation is not considered edit warring and you would not be sanctioned for taking such action. However, I understand your reluctance. I checked the article history and its a mess of reverts making it hard to follow. Could you point out the specific areas of copyright violation for me to look at? -- Whpq (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
In this 'Retraction of Previous Position' section the following section was copied:

They even copied the references!!! Thanks for your prompt response. Supertouch (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for identifying the pasage. I've removed the copied material. -- Whpq (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again... Supertouch (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Slightly Stoopid

Hey buddy ole pal, for the Slightly Stoopid page that was not a copyrightable offense since I quoted it, wrote who said that and gave the source and reference. So in all aspects that it credible and should not be deleted.Rupert1904 (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Providing attribution isn't sufficient. It's still copying copyright material and contravenes Wikipedia policy. -- Whpq (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of 'Andayil'

Good day!

Kindly don't delete Andayil. Whatever mentioned in the 'Andayil' article, is true. The tags were placed by you were removed by mistake. Sorry about it! We assure you that, we would do everything to improve the article.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinesh.andayil (talk • contribs) 16:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Robin Taylor-Firth

That was my fault, I prodded it earlier and it was removed by the IP and I asked HIAB to have a look, thanks for looking. Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Article improvement tags

…are terribly unhelpful, since they just sit there for years. I've seen tags dating back to 2005 on this wiki, because nobody can ever be arsed to fix the article; one big pile of "Nobody cares". I think this poster sums it up nicely. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt that there is a significant backlog of articles requireing cleanup. However, that does not mean that the way to fix this is to delete these articles. If you are concerned about this siutation, there are wikiprojects that are trying to make a dent in this backlog. You can join one or more of them and help out. I'm a member of some. See my user page. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Every Wikiproject I've ever joined is deader than a doornail (including Wikipedia:WikiProject Country Music and Wikipedia:WikiProject Shopping Centers). I've tried asking article improvement questions of other Wikiprojects for years and only once have I ever gotten a response — just last month I asked anyone at WP:COMICS if they could help me improve FoxTrot; no response whatsoever. It's not the quality that has me sending these to AFD, but rather my questioning of the notability. Jack Grayson was in dire shape when I saw his article and, not knowing much about his work, I had actual questions about his notability. It's a damn shame that there is still a massive chunk of this project that is in such deplorable shape — sometimes it seems like nobody wants to ever help me, leaving me rather wikistressed! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Casper Andreas

Thanks for fixing this. Just so I understand, basically the reflist tag needs to go after all the cites, correct? ArcAngel (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe so. What you did looked fine (to my eyes) but clearly it didn't work so I just tried moving the tag to see if that was the problem. Cheers! -- Whpq (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

please dont delete andayil

It is true Andayil is one of the promiment families in Perevumba, palakkad. Their contribution to the preservation of culture, values, tradition is tremendous. I am not from Andayil, but I know about this family very well. Please don't delete this article.

Balan C, Palakkad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.222.5 (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is completely without sourcing from reliable sources, nor has any been found or been forthcoming from the original author. But in any case, my talk page isn't the place for this discussion. As teh article has been nominated for deletion, the case for keeping it need to be made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andayil. -- Whpq (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't delete Andayil

Hello

I am from Ramakrishnan from Peruvamba, Palakkad. It is true that Andayil is one of the popular families here. The world has to know that families like this also exist. This family is a source of inspiration for other families. Everyone likes to have alliances with this family. So, it is requested that this page be preserved.

--Ramakrishnan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.222.5 (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As stated above. My talk page is not the place to discuss the deletion of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

I have a question pertaining to material copied from websites. You helped me previously in a related instance, however now my question is broader. On several pages I have edited I have found in more than a few instances that entire sections, and sometimes entire pages, have been copied from an unrefernced website. As I am relunctant to remove an entire page, so I have begun, on a few pages, to reference that material from the original source book - that is, if it seems worth keeping. What would the Wikipedia policiy be regarding this? Am I am wasting my time trying to salvage these pages? Supertouch (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The appropriate policy is Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Providing the source of where the material is copied from isn't sufficient to clear a copyright violation. You can either rewrite the material, or remove it. Sometimes, looking in the history of the article is useful. There may be a version of either the article or section in the history which does not contain the copyvio that can be used. If the entire article is a copyvio with no clean version, then you you can tag it as a copyright violation. In the case of blatant infringement, you can tag it with {{db-copyvio|url=inserturlhere}}. In other cases you can tag the article with {{subst:copyvio|url=inserturlhere}} and follow the instructions from the template for listing the article. I hope this helps. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I will look into each page to determine if they might be salvageable. Supertouch (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I want to warm someone that he can be block from wikipeadia,how can i warn and block him?Reply me as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coercorash (talk • contribs) 13:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I want to warm someone that he can be block from wikipeadia,becouse he's providing false info on the articles and constantly deleting my references.how can i warn and block him?Reply me as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coercorash (talk • contribs) 13:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Reason

The info provided on the salafi(now ghair muqallid)was not neutral,even the name means salafi means early muslims and theire followers i.e. Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat.So i made it neutral.Those who call themselve "salafi" today,are almost entirely known as ghair muqallids(they use the term themselves).So it's wrong to neutral any article?It's not a reason for banning me.Where were you when wahabis moved the article Ahle Sunnat wal jamaah to brailwi and edited the article saying that the muslims commite shirk etc.?Will you ban them first?Please don't disturb the neutrality of wikipeadia by getting side of wahabis,those who has started litratuar terrorism on wikipedia by writing against islam and telling muslims as mushrik(ALLAHu AKBAR!).Please reply me as soon as you can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coercorash (talk • contribs) 14:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material without any comment in terms of an edit summary is simply inappropriate. If there are issues with the neutrality of the article, I suggest you take that to the article talk page. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

Hey,

I have a quick question.

I am somewhat new to the deletion process and I want to know how to "properly include" more then one article in an AFD. Im referring to this edit. Thanks Again,

Tim1357 (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've never done it myself so I don't have any guidance other than WP:BUNDLE. Hope that helps. -- Whpq (talk) 02:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Gleich

Thank you for your support on keeping the article alive!

Lscappel (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Whpq. You have new messages at RP459's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hatnotes

No problem, Whpq, since I'm not sure if I'll make the same mistake again I'll just leave hatnotes to other users, more experienced than I am. Thank you for your help and sorry for the time you spent correcting my error. Kintaro-san (talk) 03:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi again... please, could you tell me if this is the proper use of a hatnote ? Thank you for your time... Kintaro-san (talk) 05:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Not quite. The problem here is not the hat note per se, but the disambiguaton page is not necessary as there is only one article named Ars Magica. --- Whpq (talk) 11:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree since at least three different books sharing the same title are mentioned on this disambiguation page. Only one of them is represented by a created article, ok, but the two others are just waiting to be created. Disambiguation is for different things sharing the same name, with or without a corresponding created article. It seems obvious to me... not to you? Kintaro-san (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are a navigation aid for people to find articles when multiple subjects would normally share the same name. In this case, there are no articles to navigate to as they do not exist. Disambigutation pages are not list articles. And as such, when there aren't multiple articles to navigate to, then the disambiguation page is not desirable. Such articles will be deleted. For example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Blackwell (disambiguation). Note that the page you created is eligible for speedy deletion (per Template:Db-disambig), and unless you are tell me that you are actually going to write those redlinked articles, I will nominate the page for deletion. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
In that case I could translate the spanish article, the one about the Nerea Riesco novel... additionally bringing some references to it (it doesn't have them at the moment). Good ? Kintaro-san (talk) 10:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
That would be an excel;lent thing to do. -- Whpq (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'll start this weekend then. Regards! Kintaro-san (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit: one thing more, I just noticed that you removed the italic type from the role-playing game title... but I'm quite sure about this: non-traditional games aren't written in the italic type. But games that are personal works, with a copyright and so on, are typed in the italic... Chess and poker: not in titalic. Monopoly, Ars Magica, Donkey Kong etc.: in italic. Am I wrong ? Salute! Kintaro-san (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That's unclear to me. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) states how we should treat various titles, but makes no specific statement about role-playing games or board games. So be default, since they aren't included in things to be italicised, I would not italicise them. Note also that they specifically mention Computer and Video games as opposed to just games in the list. I may be wrong, as this is just my understanding and interpretation of the style guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I hope you know that role-playing games are not video games (not at all). A role-playing game is essentially a book, indeed. The game is then played following the rules stated in the book. May I ask you a question: why do you start "Computer and Video games" with capital letters? there's no reason to do it... don't you think so? regards. Kintaro-san (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
A role playing game is a type of game and could possibly be implemented as a video game. But, I do know you are referring to pen and paper style versus CRPG. What I was pointing out is that the manual of style is very specific in its wording to identify that it is talking about computer and video games versus games in general, and did not mention board games or role-playing games. As for the game being a book, that's no strictly true. The Dungeon Master's Guide and the Player's Handbook would be the actual books versus the game itself which would be Dungeons and Dragons. Having said that, it does look like the convention is to italicise the name of the game. So please go ahead and make corrections. As for the odd capitalisation, this is a talk page and not subject to the manual of style so I'm free to make typing mistakes and odd stylistic uses. -- Whpq (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Repton School Dubai

I removed the copyvio material from Repton School Dubai and turned the article into a stub. I therefore removed the {{db-copyvio}} tag on the article. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Claudia Costa

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

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

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

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Gleich

Hi, Jonathan Gleich, has won a number of costume contests:
http://blog.blockbuster.com/2009/10/halloween-costume-contest-results.html
http://my.hgtv.com/halloween-ideas/Adult-Costumes/Zoltar/detail.esi?oid=8262934
http://hollywoodeastconnection.com/?p=2983
As his "zoltar" caricature. I would like to add this to his Wiki article, but am reluctant, due to a conflict of interest issue. Do you have an opinion on this?

Thanks

Lscappel (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The sources are unreliable documenting trivia. -- Whpq (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the input, I appreciate it! Lscappel (talk) 11:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Article: Shock of Pleasure

Howdy Whpq,

Please help me understand the reasons for deleting the Shock of Pleasure Page from Wikipedia. I am the group's manager and anything we submit comes directly from the source. Executive Music Group (EMG) has SOP information on their site that we furnished to them.

Thank you for your time.

Regards--Romeo18 (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


PLEASE SEE RESPONSE FROM NawlinWiki BELOW:

  • The version I deleted was written like a straight advertisement or PR release. See WP:SPAM. The current article is better. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • As NawlinWiki has noted the article was advertising. It was also a copy of material which specifically stated that EMG held the copyright to the material, and as such is not something that can simply be copied into Wikipedia. Copyright material can be donated (WP:DCP), but donating material which is essentially a press release would likely not be accepted. So in either case, it would be deleted. -- Whpq (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Shepherd

Wow - thanks! --Paularblaster (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Saini rulers of bharatpur

There might be some useful content here, see link. I've declined the prod since this isn't obvious vandalism. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The material has been copied verbatim out of two different articles without attribution. I've redirected to a section of the History of Bharatpur which which appears to be the most appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 11:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, good call. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Excess verbiage?

Hey, easy, I'm being very patient with your demands. To inform the reader where Ars Magica is from, is definitely not excess verbiage. Kintaro-san (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The edit was based on the principle that disambiguation pages are not articles, but are navigation aids to help the reader find the correct article. But since you seem to feel strongly about this, I've reverted the change. -- Whpq (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you... Kintaro-san (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MurmurHash (2nd nomination)

Hi, Whpq. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MurmurHash, you may interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MurmurHash (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't ever lie on a wiki page. The vandal is you in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.182.6 (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming you are referring to this edit. Per Wikipedia:Vandalism, repeated introduction of copyrighted material is vandalism. -- Whpq (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Gatineau Park invitation

You are receiving this invitation to join other editors working on the Gatineau Park article, because you participated in the AfD debates at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics of Gatineau Park, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Woodlands Preservation League and/or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatineau Park Protection Committee and have thus shown an interest in this subject. The greater the number of editors who participate in articles, the better the articles become. - Ahunt (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, but I will decline. I only weighed on the deletion debate passing through AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem, your contributions to the AfD debate were appreciated regardless! - Ahunt (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The letters

hello, you left a tag on my article and I was wondering if you had any suggestions for me. I have tried to neutralize the article myself, but I am new to Wikipedia and need help. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chigh1101 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The article reads like a press release rather than an encyclopedia article. There's no need to have a section about the author as she has her own article. The critical reception section reads like an attenpt to market the book, consisting of nothing but quote snippets. The folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels are specifically dedicated to the improvement of articles about novels. They may be able to give you more assistance, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) gives some guidance on the style for writing. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

NOV-002 cured Cancer

Here is the story for Christmas

Lady Cured of Cancer made the Miami ABC Channel 7 News yesterday!

Here is a link please click "watch this video":

http://www.wsvn.com/features/articles/medicalreports/MI137669/

Novelos Therapeutics has a 46 patients in a Phase II FDA clinical trial for their NOV-002 medication and are currently enrolling and this is one patients story with her breast cancer cured!

http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00499122?order=1

The sad part of the story is they are only accepting 46 test patients.

Happy Holidays,


Alex Kalman

Bixbyte (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Bixbyte

this material is not copywrited

Your addition to NOV-002 has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Copied from http://www.glutoxim.ru/eng/index.php?id=9&issueId=7 Whpq (talk)

_____________________________________

Hi Whpq, this material came right from my source Novelos Therapeutics.
Actually the site www.glutoxim.ru is a sister site and they borrowed this info directly from Novelos since they speak Russian and needed an english translation.
As you stated, it "appears" and that is all appears.
Now, kindly correct your removal.

If you require further evidence I could have Dr Pazoles or Harry Palmin the CEO of Novelos Therapeutics verify this statement? Harry Palmin helped me with this literature.


Thank You,
Alex Kalman
Bixbyte (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Bixbyte

_________________________

Replied on editor's talk page as it is a follow on from a copyvio warning there. -- Whpq (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

GNU Free Documentation License

Hi Whpq,
I have asked Harry Palmin the president and CEO of Novelos Therapeutics if he is willing to sign the form you request.
He should email back to me in a couple days with this permission form.


Have a Great Day!
Alex Kalman
Bixbyte (talk) 05:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Bixbyte

Hi, I Need the guy in charge of the Wikipeida

RE: Wikipedia.com ‏From: Harry Palmin (hpalmin@n.xxx) Sent: Wed 12/02/09 9:25 AM To: 'Alex Kalman' (bixbyte@h.xxx)

Hello Alex,

We will look into it. Do you have a contact at Wikipedia?

Thanks. All the best this holiday season.

Harry


_________________________________________


Novelos Therapeutic makes NOV-002 a new type of cancer medication.
As per your request, I have asked that the president and CEO my friend Harry Palmin to sign your permission form to allow some data about NOV-002 to be posted on the wikipedia.

Please give me the contact?

Bixbyte (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Bixbyte

WP:DCP provides all the steps and information. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Claudia Costa

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

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claudia Costa (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

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

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to note

They don't make a barnstar big enough for your continued work here. Occasionally, I take a look and see that you're still at it. It isn't that I've lost interest, but as you know, there's just so much of this stuff. :P I'm hoping to finish a few more off the list by Christmas. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It's slow going, but I'll keep pluggijng away at it. Cheers! -- Whpq (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Cash

Hi, what should be the right tag? What I see it has wrong is that it starts giving a history of money in general instead of talking about the distinction between cash and money in general, about the etymology of the word... etc. The ideas of the last two sentence are part of this and I guess should be placed earlier.  franklin  16:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, I forgot to link the article i am talking about. It is cash. I read in the wikification project that a point for using the tag is "No specific lead paragraph and/or has no section headings". There is a leading little sentence but part of the leading content is far bellow. And the history of money (that doesn't have much emphasis in cash in particular) is not given in an independent section. It kind of fits, I guess!? Maybe what you had in mind is that there is a more appropriate tag for it?  franklin  17:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any significant issue with the article beyond that of any wikipedia article as being a work in progress. In other words, I don't see it as an issue needing some tag to be placed on the article. You may want to mention your concern on the talk page. Or just be WP:BOLD and make the edits that you feel are necessary. -- Whpq (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hetukar jha

Thanks for explaining the de-prod. I'll let the article develop for a while, maybe try to clean it up, see how it develops. I don't think that a Fullbright scholarship, or a Rhodes for that matter, are enough on their own for notability. Perhaps though, more sources will emerge. Shadowjams (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Based solely on being a Fulbright scholar is not sufficient to establish notability, but people with Fulbright scholarships have often done other things that are notable. If the article, doesn't develop, it's perfectly fine to put it to AFD. I just didn't think it was proper to put it to PROD at this point in time. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Exactly my thoughts. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Lisduff (County Cork)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Lisduff (County Cork), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Lisduff. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot found the content duplication during the middle of a split operation. The split was made confirming to guidelines with appropriate edit comments to link article and their edit histories to maintain contribution attribution. -- Whpq (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

a little truth and a whole lot of fiction

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

re Fresno County Sheriff's Department article

I see no purpose, or indeed support by policy or guideline, for removing the name of the state and nation from the above stub - you may be surprised how many people are unaware where Fresno is - and even the specifics of the area, since it indicates the notability of the subject (a neighbourhood of a couple of thousand against tens of thousand). Not everyone wishes to click the links, either. Under the circumstances I have replaced the State and nation details to the article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that basic geographic details are relevant. I was more concerned with information about ranked size and population which would become out of date and was not really relevant to the article. Reegards. -- 18:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, although the point that the Department serves a sizable population - since some cities may only have inhabitants in the hundreds - should be noted somewhere in the article. Perhaps when someone expands it, sometime in the future? LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Dawod Group

Dear Wikipedia Staff,

I am very depressed because I was facing problem with my article “Dawood Group”. I have tried a number of times to update my page. But every time revert changes take place only because somebody has put the information about my page. Below is the Group current information which is available on Wikipedia.

The Dawood Group is a leading Pakistani holding company[1] founded by Ahmed Dawood,[2] tracing its origins back to the early 20th century. The group owns companies ranging from fertilizer, textiles, finance[3] and computers.[4] The group has been accused of poor labour practices and using violence and torture to repress organized workers[5].

I have tried a number of times to update it but all in vain.

1. If Group is accused of poor labour practices then how should we start Dawood Hercules a joint venture 2. Why Group starts a not for profit organization named “Dawood Foundation” the largest charitable organization with the assets of 50 Millions Pkr 3. Why Group donate to Al-Shifa Trust Hospital 10.5 million Pkr for a modern complex hospital (http://www.memon-world.net/welfare_inst4.htm) 4. Why Group starts Dawood Engineering College 5. Why Group starts Dawood Public School for Girls 6. Why should our Chairman would be Honorary Consulate of Italy in Lahore 7. Why should Chairman of Dawood Group runs PPAF (Pakistan Poverty Alliviation Fund) www.ppaf.org.pk

Dawood Group is example of Best labour practices not violence. Below are some links from other sources which will prove our Group Status.

http://www.aboutus.org/DawoodGroup.com http://www.memon-world.net/welfare_inst4.htm http://www.dawn.com/2007/06/13/ebr8.htm http://www.pakistaneconomist.com/issue1999/issue37/cover5.htm http://www.indiaenews.com/pdf/19219.pdf http://www.tbl.com.pk/challenge-of-the-21st-century-advancement-poverty-paradox/1 http://www.techangelsnet.com/abt3.html http://www.ppaf.org.pk/newspopups/News53.asp http://www.ppaf.org.pk/newspopups/News62.asp


I humbly request you to make a brief research about Dawood Group. Dawood Group a well reputable organization internationally and nationally. The Current information on Wikipedia is damaging our impression worldwide. Kindly remove the current information and allow us to put proper reliable and trustworthy information on Wikipedia. I would be grateful.

Best Regards Kashif Nazir

117.20.28.66 (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Dawood Group: is there a BLP problem?

Hi Whpq. I see you're an experienced editor, and I saw that the person from Dawood had tried to contact you as well. Do you have an idea of what is going on at the Dawood Group article? Are there any policy violations there, for example BLP, or any unreliable sources denouncing the management? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(Intervention from talk-page stalker who was comng here on the same subject):
  • @EdJohnston: the basic story is at WP:COIN#Dawood Group - an editor from the company created its article, others trimmed it back and added some unfavourable, but sourced, information, and the company editor has been edit-warring and sock-puppetting to restore his preferred version. You can see it all in the article history. It's not BLP, because it's about the company. Actually, now that I look at the source cited for the unfavourable sentence, it could maybe do with investigation of how WP:RS it is.
  • @Whpq - what I came here to say was, now that he has actually asked for help, somebody should explain to him about COI, ownership, consensus and what he should do next when he is unblocked - propose changes he would like on the article talk page, declaring his COI. Do you plan to reply to his message above? If not (sigh) I will, though I really don't want to get involved in a great saga. We shouldn't take out the bit he doesn't like, but I would think there is scope to expand the article so it doesn't form so prominent a part, per WP:UNDUE.
Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
As JohnCD noted, there is no BLP issue since this is a company. I'm willing to work with this editor although I'm not sure how wiling he is to work with us. I'm not familiar with Pakistan, and perhaps somebody from Wikiproject Pakistan may be in a better position to gauge sources and help develop the article. -- Whpq (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Whpq! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 944 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Mohammad Siddiq Chakari - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

Troy garity

Sorry, I couldn't figure out how to get back to you, Mr. Johnson. Simone is a party planner, an interview with Troy Garity in an English paper mentions this. Also, she was the manager of the Mercer. Horkana keeps erasing my source for Jane Fonda picking out the diamond ring. I am sorry if that is an issue, I just don't know why Horkana objects so strongly. If it is an issue, I will step off —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realitylogger72 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ {{cite web | last = Jonas | first = Samantha |title = Mother and Daughter-in-Law Day at the spa | publisher = Fox News | date = 2007-05-08 | url = http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,270552,00.html | accessdate 2009-07-31|
  2. ^ {{cite web | title = Embelleciendo a mama | publisher = Telemundo television |date = 2005-06-28 | url = http://www.telemundo47.com/noticias/12931703/detail.html | accessdate = 2009-07-31 |
  3. ^ {{cite web | last = Fischler | first = Marcelle | title = He uses hair to make your body beautiful | publisher = The New York Times | 1999-09-19 | url = http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/19/nyregion/long-island-journal-he-uses-hair-to-make-the-body-beautiful.html?n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fB%2fBeauty%20Salons | accessdate = 2009-07-31 |
  4. ^ Ibn Athir: al-Kamal fi al-tarikh, 7.114
  5. ^ al-Sayf al-saqil, 108
  6. ^ Siyar a‘lam al-nubala’ (15.90)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Whpq/Archive_3&oldid=1069602428"