Hei Oddbodz, I am not done with the article yet, how many references should I add, there are too many out there. When I have added the required amount of references, can I remove the tag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Woman RegardsJogibaba (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. You just need to add enough which establish that the album has had a notable impact on society (eg: a review from a major either in Scandinavia or elsewhere in the world). These are particularity important on this article as the label does not have its own article and may not usually meet the notability guidelines. This would often be grounds for deletion. However I believe that due to the large number of notable artists involved, the article may be notable provided its imact can be shown. Thanks and let me know if you need any more help, Oddbodz (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I have added 3 references now, going to add 2 more, if those are enough, can add more if you ask. As far it goes for the Label, check this album

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listen_to_the_Banned this is the same Label, Grappa and the same producer Deeyah. Valley records merely distributed Listen to the Banned.

Yes, those references seem sufifient. I will ask another editor to have a look just to make sure (otherwise you could find it being removed at a later date) but I think it will be fine. As for the other album you mentioned, that is suitable because it has envolvment from a notable record label. Thanks and feel once I have checked with somebody else, I will remove the tags for you and notify you of the discussion on your talk page. Thanks, Oddbodz (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Canoe1967 also feels the article is notable so I will go and remove the relevent tags. Please note his sugestion to add it to the artists diography in their articles. Thanks, Oddbodz (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Oddbodz, can you please tell me what is "the artists diography", sorry, this word is new for me. RegardsJogibaba (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, should say discography. A discography is a collection of CDs/albums released by an artist (eg:see here for Mari Boine's discography). Oddbodz (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I will do it tomorrow, now it is 1.40AM here, going to sleep, but that would be done for sure by tomorrow. Regards Jogibaba (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

thanks for the feedback ! I actually just copied the section from the 'global' Luminosity article to this new article. But I take your comment as an invitation to try to make the article more readable to the non-expert soon. Andre.holzner (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thats great! Unfortunatly many science articles on wikipedia are written in a mannor that the non-expert wont be able to understand. Thanks for helping make it more understandable for them - Oddbodz (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed you placed a BLPPROD on Justice shivaraj patil. NDTV is a reliable source and the article makes a verifiable claim to notability. Hack (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - my mistake. I have now removed the tag. Oddbodz (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem, it was a bit of a mess at the time. Hack (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Please use the talk page at the article to support your inclusion of a Gun list to a movie's article. Please add any references from reliable secondary sources as to why you feel that inclusion of a list of guns to a movie's article is notable. You are required to support your inclusions to the Encyclopedia, please do so. 12.144.158.7 (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The article is on a notable topic. The section on guns simply adds to the article about the movie. Not every single inch of an article needs to be notable in its own right. Actualy, you are required to support why you feel the section should be removed as there is currently a large concencuss to the section being removed (from what I can tell, you are the only user who feels it should be removed). If you would like to see it removed, please discuss this on the talk page before removing it. Thanks. Oddbodz (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? It's a list of guns. I doubt you've even opened the article or viewed the edit differences. I can think of no other film article that contains such a specious list of guns right down to a ridiculous internal link to double barreled shotgun. Have you any references as to why you believe any/all of these are in the least bit notable in regards our historical record of this never released in the US (its home market) film which returned less than 1/5 of its cost to make?12.144.158.7 (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I have reviewd the edit diferences and I still feel that the section could say. I ask you, why shouldn't it be in the article if it does not take away from it? The second part of your reply seems to be questioning the notability of the article itself. If you feel the article is not notiable, consider placing a request at WP:AfD. Thanks, Oddbodz (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing in my responses can be mistaken for my questioning the notability of the article itself. I state, "Please add any references from reliable secondary sources as to why you feel that inclusion of a list of guns to a movie's article is notable." and follow later with, "Have you any references as to why you believe any/all of these are in the least bit notable in regards our historical record of this...?". My edits are clear, I ask what is so notable about the Guns that it requires an unsubstantiated list? I have seen few, if any, movie reviews or scholarly criticism that identifies or discusses prop handguns or rifles by name - I therefore question why it is notable for the encyclopedia if it is not found notable in those sources which purport to be the foundation for our edits here?12.144.158.7 (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, it seems as if we have reached an impass. I am therefore going to request a third opinion (WP:3) and we can see if somesort of agreement can be reached. Thanks, Oddbodz (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick note: The Third Opinion was given at the article talk page, where I'm also going to add a note. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article British television content rating system is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British television content rating system until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. I'm giving YOU the message because I can't find the original creator, but I want to delete that untruthful article.It's-a me, Kiwikid! 18:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's February Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 500 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!

A 'Request For Comment' for Good Article Nominations is currently being held. We are asking that you please take five to ten minutes to review all seven proposals that will affect Good Article Nominations if approved. Full details of each proposal can be found here. Please comment on each proposal (or as many as you can) here. At this time, Proposal 1, 3, and 5 have received full (or close to) support. If you have questions of anything general (not related to one specif proposal), please leave a message under the General discussion thread. Please note that Proposal 2 has been withdrawn and no further comments are needed. Also, please disregard Proposal 9 as it was never an actual proposal.

Hi there,

I notice you altered my opening line on TRS-80 (disambiguation). However, as TRS-80 is the primary topic, this *is* the standard form of style for a disambiguation page, or at least as close as I can get it while keeping the page useful.

I appreciate that the opening line is a bit long, but it needs clarification (it's a disambiguation page) and TRS-80 is used as both the name of the original model and a brand for many unrelated models(!)

FWIW, I'd rather have split the TRS-80 page, but there was no consensus in favour, so I left it. I'm trying to clarify the existing setup "as is". Ubcule (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

A diambiguation page is simply a list of things with the same name. To have a primary subject, it is an article not a disambiguation page. Could I sugest perhaps moving the article to List of TRS-80 models (or similar) and removing the other things, or reverting to simply providing links to pages about something with the name TRS-80.

Thanks, Oddbodz (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you mean by "To have a primary subject, it is an article not a disambiguation page"? As for the proposed move/name change, perhaps you could mention that at the split discussion, as it's still related to the organisation of the article(s).

FWIW, I think it's necessary to have some sort of clarification/disambiguation that lets people get the the model they're looking for *without* having to wade all the way through the main TRS-80 page (which only covers the Model I in its opening section and is thus even more misleading and opaque for dab purposes). Ubcule (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not vandalism to indicate that a page has a huge problem with it by inserting sections into the page that are indicated in the diagram for the page but do not yet exist in the page. The diagram shows a categorization scheme that is not reflected on the page. Either the diagram needs to be changed, or the sections need to be written. I don't know enough to write them personally, but I would like to have them written so that I can read them. In other words, I want to have the diagram explained on the page that shows it. 108.210.238.69 (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, of course if there is an issue with articles you cannot solve, this should be pointed out to editors who can. However, this should be mentioned on the article's talk page, not just inserted into the article. Discussion on the talk page is encouraged but just putting it in the article in vandalism. If you wish to make this more obvious, consider placing a tag at the top of the article (see a list of article tags here). Thanks, Oddbodz (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I have made a request for a new cleanup tag on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/Cleanup#Diagram_Does_not_Match_Text to handle situations where the diagram and the text of an article do not match. 108.210.238.69 (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Cool - that is probably a much better way to go about it. I have also moved your comment about name discrepancies between sections and the diagram to the article's talk page. However, on second inspection, it seems that the case is more the fact that the article has missed Implementation altogether rather than changing its name. If you feel you can write a section on implementation, feel free to do so. If not, place a note on the talk page and see if someone else can. Thanks, Oddbodz (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. In retrospect, the page probably needs a lot more cleanup than just the text/diagram mismatch, but solving that problem would be a good start 108.210.238.69 (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's April Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 500 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!

-- Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Wikify.

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 6, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2013
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2013, the project has:

154 Featured Articles 53 Featured Lists 7 Featured Topics 5 Featured Pictures

43 A-Class Articles 589 Good Articles 9 Good Topics

---

Content

Changes to Featured and Good content News items and announcements

Feature: "A-class: Is It Worth It?" Interview: Teancum

---

Project Navigation

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

Thank you for your creation of 2013 Boston bombings. However, there was already an existing article at Boston Marathon explosions that has already received significant edits. I would advise to leave off your creation and adopt the existing article. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion is: When in doubt, ignore it. (Side note: The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines) --Onorem♠Dil 16:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Now, some of you might be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with, the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roar (from Monsters University), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Digital download (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Roar Artwork.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for looking after my talk page. I blocked the troll, not because of his fake legal threat, but because he wasn't here to be productive. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Precedent is precedent, not certainty. Until we have a satisfactorily authoritative source for the child's style, we cannot include one. DBD 22:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I included a citation official Royal Family Facebook page and is written by the staff at Buckingham Palace on behalf of the Queen. Not sure how you can get much more authoritative you can get! And it says 'he is', not he should be. Therefore, that is the child's official title. Oddbodz (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I can see your meaning, but I'm afraid it's a case of once bitten, twice shy – we have used the official royal website before only to discover factual mistakes (i.e. not matching primary sources). In my experience the official site (and therefore, presumably, the official facebook and twitter) are not wholly reliable (for one thing, we can't guarantee they don't use us for reference!), so it really is best to wait for the press release regarding the infant's name. DBD 08:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• As a listed GA participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should be eligible to appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat|Contributions03:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Vango.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Breaking Bad title card.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This message was delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To stop receiving messages from WikiProject Wikify, remove your name from the recipients page. -- EdwardsBot (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

For being fast on Huggle & anti-vandalism work! ///EuroCarGT 21:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear friend, I had inserted the photo seemed more suitable, being an image of Lord Roberts of the period of the late nineteenth century, the period (1895) he received the title of Field Marshal. The picture currently present instead portrays the general during the march on Kandahar (1880).--79.55.238.109 (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

My apologies - I accidentally reverted your edit, not realising that it was a useful contribution. However, on further inspection, I can see it was a useful edit and I have restored your version of the article with your image. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Oddbodz (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

A huge obit in the Times makes him unnotable?--38.105.132.130 (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

In Narrow Gauge Down Under where is "Click here to challange deletion" button? Tabletop (talk) 12:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For putting up with the best of humanity. Jamesx12345 13:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, its appreciated. Oddbodz (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

If the spin orbit interaction is taken into account, we have to add an extra term in Hamiltonian which represents the magnetic dipole interaction energy.^[1]

Now, the new Hamiltonian with this new term doesn't commute with and ; but it does commute with L², S² and , which is the total angular momentum. In other words, are no longer good quantum numbers, but are.

And since, good quantum numbers are used to label the eigenstates, the relevant formulae of interest are expressed in terms of them. For example, the spin-orbit interaction energy is given by^[2]

where

As we can see, the above expressions contain the good quantum numbers, namely Sashwattanay (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

My apologies - I accidentally identified your edit as vandalism. Thank you for bringing this to my attention - I have restored your edit to the article and will remove the warning from your talk page. Oddbodz (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Oddbodz. I agree, it was indeed unconstructive. I just thought it would be more consistent to have an article on Liberty City, since Los Santos, another frequent location in the GTA series, also has an article, and it could also be a path for other sources on the fictional location, as well as the GTA Wiki.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.220.213.141 (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, if you feel that the article should be created, perhaps you could suggest it on the GTA talk page. Also, note that the page Los Santos (Grand Theft Auto) currently redirect to Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. Thanks, Oddbodz (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! Actually, I was refering to this page on Los Santos. Apparently, there are two of them. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.220.213.141 (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that one to my attention. Turns out that it should have been a redirect too (as per this AfD. Oddbodz (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Saw you were patrolling some of the vandalized articles I was patrolling as well. Nice work! Bailmoney27 talk 22:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)