This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I have added a "((prod))" template to the article James Spudich, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the ((dated prod))
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Sancho 23:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I rated the article as start class, but please in the future do not modify the class of any article you are personally involved with - even if it's completely wrong. Instead leave the rating and request a new one. :-) - Duribald 14:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter
| ||
|
This has been a tumultuous month for the project yet again. We need your input on how the project should work and what it's role should be. And we need to start getting Featured Articles, folks! :)
This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 013 – May 2007). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
| |
Complete To Do List
Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.
As the project is currently just starting, our more experienced editors are working on the project infrastructure, classifying articles, and listing/assessing red links. Your assistance is welcome. If you would prefer to just edit - and why wouldn't you? - we have a choice selection of red links to turn blue and articles to clean! Now let's get busy.
If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log. |
BetacommandBot 23:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Scolaire - I've noticed your recent good work and gone through you list of contributions and thought to myself that you might be able to help us out from time to time on the - ((WP:IR)) --Vintagekits 09:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your note; I like Padraig3uk's solution - it makes the situation very clear. Warofdreams talk 11:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Scolaire. Thanks for your message of support. I hope now that I have shown Snappy that there are other examples, the debate will largely be over (by the way, he didn't edit the template after I put those examples on the talk page - for some reason our edit times and signature times differ by an hour - Snappy hasn't edited the template since I gave him the proof he asked for). However, if it continues, I will ask a level-headed admin like BrownHairedGirl (who I see works on Irish politics) to lock the template as I don't really want to start a big arbitration case. Number 57 11:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Replied to you here. As I said over at the IR project talk page I've no objections to any changes being made, and would welcome it being expanded so it ends up more like ((1981 Hunger Strike)). Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 08:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Excellent thanks! It is much more coordinated now. Chris Buttigiegtalk 11:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The hunger strike article is up to the standard I wanted to get it to, so that's one project out of the way apart from any minor fixes that need doing in the various review processes. I've still got a couple of minor projects on the go, but thought I'd make a start on reading an Easter Rising book or two later this week and seeing what to do from there. What do you think the best plan for the article is? Whenever I've tackled articles in the past I tend to find the best approach is to source what's there that can be sourced to start with, then see what else needs adding/removing/changing once that's out of the way. Does that sound reasonable enough? One Night In Hackney303 07:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't look as if this is going to happen now, as One Night In Hackney has quit Wikipedia. If you read this, ONIH, I miss you. I wish we could have worked together. Scolaire 11:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Found this blackdevil@fastmail.co.uk you might like to give it a try. --Domer48 16:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Give ONIH an Email !!! "about the Rising article"
Can you take a look at this for me please? Is it legit or not? Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 06:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The link to the Labour Party in the Sheehan article is there for a relevant reason, and had been there for over two years with noone having a problem with it. Just deleting it without comment is not very friendly, particularly for a lad in his fifties. I might just take the opportunity to add that the page is in the form it is in to largely reflect the background, situation and outcome of a nationalist MP caught up in the turmoils of 1914-18. It is not intended to be a "family tree" thing, even when his family is included. I grew up in an Irish speaking republican family where I was steeped in the 1916 tradition often marched up in Rathfarham to meet Margret Pearse at St. Endas. In an interview I saw by Jimmy Wales founder of Wikipedia, he was very clear in stating that his purpose was to have historic information made available to future generation which would otherwise be lost in archives or which historians would otherwise sive out of their interpretation of events. I have no bother providing the document I sent J.L. to anyone who wants it. What more can be provided than Sheehan's handwritten statement, admittedly there is the need to have the writing verified, but J.L. recognises it for sure as he has been long involved with DDS research (and we know each other personally also). Please see the note I have added to the Sheehan discussion page. Greetings Osioni 23:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Peter! Ok, no problem, this was not my best idea. But he competed for Great Britain, because Ireland was not independent in 1900? Maybe the text can be rewritten like "... Irish athlete competed for the team of Great Britain and Ireland..."? The next problem are the categories. I try to make the "Olympic bronze medalists" empty from competitors. So that every person is listed under the appropriate subcategory for his country. And I just pulled out the last competitor from the category "Olympic atheltes" :-) (except three ancient athletes, all other are now also listed under their country) Do you have an idea what we can do in these cases? The problem is, that we do not have "Ireland at the 1900 Summer Olympics". Please have a look here: 1900 Summer Olympics#Participating nations and here 1900 Summer Olympics medal count. The medals were won officially for Great Britain? Maybe we can create a special category called: "Olympic medalists for Great Britain and Ireland"? Maybe we can list him as athlete twice? Under "Olympic athletes of Great Britain" and also under "Olympic athletes of Ireland"? Thank you and :) Doma-w 15:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a list of Irish sportspeople who participated in the Summer Olympics from 1896 to 1920 while representing the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
See also:
I would include this category into:
In this three categories our new category will be shown as subcategory.
Here you can see an example for an existing category in the same style only without the links "See also": Category:Olympic athletes of the United Team of Germany
Corrections are welcomed! Kind regards Doma-w 02:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry! I'd forgotten you proposed that. It's difficult to keep track of everything with such a large page. At least we seem to be heading in the right direction now. Readro 09:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem, Readro. I was only having a laugh. We do seem to be heading in the right direction, but I suspect we'll have to work hard to keep the discussion focussed on that proposal, and not keep going off at a tangent. BTW, when do you think it would be appropriate to put that proposal on the project page? You would probably be the proper person to do that since it's your baby to begin with, and also it would look more like a POV edit coming from me. Scolaire 13:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd appreciate input on the dextroamphetamine talk page. I'd like to finish this discussion.--scuro 15:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Scolaire. Better late than never, eh? It turns out that there isn't a mechanism for discussing proposed category creations at CfD itself, so I went to the talkpage, and invited the appropriate wikiprojects to comment. I have held back on proposing the criminals renaming yet, because its a mammoth task and I would prefer to get a groundswell of support (or otherwise) on the talkpage before tackling that, I think, would would be a controversial change. See:
Rockpocket 00:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for giving me the nod. I've added my 2½d to the talk page. I think renaming Category:Criminals would be a big mistake. My point all along was that there are people who are objectively criminals and people who are considered by some to be justified in their actions, but who are imprisoned on criminal charges. I think if we get a favourable response we should go ahead and create all the cats, and have them as subcats of "Prisoners and detainees" as agreed, and leave "Criminals" well alone. Scolaire 08:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Scolaire, I see you provided sources on this article one to the IRSP website one to an RSF statement on indymedia these would not be regarded as reliable sources on their own.--padraig 22:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I said on the talk page they were not good sources. I'm only trying to write an article that shows how the term "Republican Movement" is used. I don't want bits being deleted just because they don't suit a particular POV. Scolaire 22:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Got a few things that need to be taken care of here, but once they are done I'll be gone again. Still not got much further along with the Rising sorry, been quite ill for the last month or so. I'll hopefully have some progress after the weekend. One Night In Hackney303 14:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, welcome back! Sorry to hear you haven't been well. And I'm sorry to hear you can't be persuaded to stay. Good luck with the ArbCom. I see I'm a mentioned party (below) so I'll probably make an appearance there at some stage. Scolaire 08:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and good luck with the FAC, too. Scolaire 12:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
User:SqueakBox has filed Wikipedia:Request for arbitration#User:Vintagekits and you are a mentioned party. Kittybrewster (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello. The above named arbitration case, in which you were named as a party, has opened. Please submit your evidence directly on the case page, or, if needed, submit it via email to an arbitrator or an arbitration clerk.
For the Arbitration clerk committee,
- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 11:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
My watchlist shows you're busy removing it, I've just started a discussion about that on the category talk page actually, if you want to add your views. One Night In Hackney303 23:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll go to bed now. If he hasn't reverted by tomorrow somebody will have to. Scolaire 23:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
After many weeks of illness I'm feeling slightly better and I'll crack on with some more research for the Rising article, and the ArbCom case will probably last long enough to fix that up. I've still got to write an article about the "other" Brian Keenan too, but that's a relatively simple task as I've got notes for all the source material done, it's much easier when I just have to use bits from various books rather than read several books in their entirety. One Night In Hackney303 14:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
More power to you! I'm following the ArbCom but damn-all else. My Free Derry efforts haven't got any farther than a couple of paragraphs on paper. Just so long as they don't go ahead with that idea of a blanket ban on "Troubles" edits! Scolaire 14:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I've just returned from Wikibreak, and seen (after spending most of the morning going through the relevant pages) that you've taken exception to a posting of mine (see here). I think that you've probably misinterpreted what I've written (just for the record, Giano's stupid attack page is quite wrong in its interpretation). Please could I trouble you to set out what you find offensive in my post and I'll comment further. Thank you in advance.--Major Bonkers (talk) 10:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify, Major Bonkers, when I said "the whole section 'Champagne' on User talk:Kittybrewster, culminating in this diff" I meant only that yours was the last post to that section, so that by linking to that diff I could show the section in its entirety, including the heading. By "culminating" I did not mean to imply that your post was in any way climactic, or particularly offensive. To be honest, I don't understand most of that post. It seems to be written in some sort of private lingo. Reading it again now, you might actually be chiding Kittybrewster et al (I had no idea what "Aytong or Arrer" meant until I re-read Giano's page just now), but I genuinely can't be sure. My problem with the whole section, as I said, was with the use of a user talk page by a group of mates to abuse disparage a fellow editor, however disruptive, while sipping virtual champagne. As far as I can see, there has been no evidence or proposed findings of fact against you personally in the ArbCom, and I'm fine with that. Scolaire 09:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Peter! Thank very much for your help! No problem, I know, that the time will come for your article. :) Kind regards! Doma-w 14:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there anything that can be done with this, which I saved from a disruptive AfD nomination (4 minutes after it was created!). There's been mentions of him in various other articles for quite some time, so it's reasonable enough to assume he's covered in some sources which I'm not in possession of, but you might be? One Night In Hackney303 14:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a bit of a mess, really! According to the article his notability is for the War of Idependence, according to Chronology of the Irish Civil War it's for freeing the prisoners in Dundalk on 27 July 1922, and according to Sean F. Quinn it's for being shot in 1923 when the Free State troops tried to recapture Frank Aiken. Fourth Northern Division of the Irish Republican Army brings in the bit about the ASU in Dublin, without any context. Neither he or Seán F. is in any books that I have. Eoin Neeson's The Civil War confirms the account of the attack on Dundalk jail, but gives no names apart from Aiken's. It might be worthwhile asking Jdorney, who wrote the Chronology of the Civil War article. He might have a source for you. Scolaire 13:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The above named Arbitration case has closed. The Arbitration Committee decided that [a]ny user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The Committee also decided to uplift Vintagekits' indefinite block at the same time.
The full decision can be viewed here.
For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 08:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The user is on a wikibreak. There's just too much rage around here right now. Scolaire 23:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |