Talpiot Tomb

I have reposted the discussion on the open letter from the Princeton Talpiot tomb symposium 2008 scholars on both pages. I'm unsure why you removed it and wondered if you could clarify for me please. It is a notable development, and quite significant to the ongoing debate, nothing to do with POV as far as I can see. It is not my point of view that a significant number of scholars from the symposium have posted the open letter, nor is it my point of view that they have accused him of misleading the media on the response of the symposium to his theory. Indeed it is much like the rest of criticism that have been noted and permitted on wikipedia on the Talpiot tomb. I was careful to not make any pronouncement on Jacobovici or Cameron's culpability in their claims.

I am unaware that the same text cannot be posted in complimentary articles. If this is so I will remove the development from one of the articles, thank you for letting me know about it.

I will be looking into that soon, but for the moment, I'm going to be busy with my Sailing and Fighting Instructions, and all their links. I will get there soon! Renaissancee (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renaissancee (talk • contribs) 23:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please could you discuss why you deleted the entry relating singing sands and ghouls. It baffles me how this could be less relevant than much of what is here. What kind of source do you require in order to approve of this amendment? No essential nature (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice your latest edit has readded some of the spelling mistakes that had been removed (I think by me):

• Alonso Sánchez Coello (1531-1587) Spanish court portrait painter NOT COELLEO
• Juan Carreño de Miranda not Juan Carreñ de Miranda (1614-1685)[1]

Actually I see we have articles for these 2; the typos do not need redirects.

• Jean or Jehan Cousin - NOT Jen [2]
• Jean-Germain Drouais not German

It is also clear that Henri and Ignace Fantin-Latour are indeed the same person [3] as my note that you have removed suggested. Also we have Lucas Hornebolte now, but not with typos too.

An article that you have been involved in editing, H Stewart, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H Stewart. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Movingboxes (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theese are not alternative spellings, which the Getty lists fully, just typos at some point. There are probably other mistakes re-introduced. I'm tempted just to revert your edit wholesale as apart from removing blue-links it introduces more mistakes than adding anything correct, but will allow some time in case you want to redo. As I think I've mentioned before, the Getty is an easy and authoritative name-checker for artists. Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work! Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Darn. I'll try to recheck. Unfortunately it takes some time.. - Skysmith (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Johnbod (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you could aid me as you seem well versed in crime articles. After watching a documentary on Jeffrey Erickson aka The Bearded Bandit I came here to read more about him however the article is non-existent, so instead I tried to search the web and found nearly nothing on him online excluding this page on encyclopedia.com and a geocities website. I tried looking for sources to craft an article but as the only realiable one was the encyclopedia, and even that is limited, I am in need of some help. Could you aid me? –– Lid^(Talk) 14:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm. Sources do seem to be scare. The events as such are not that unusual (even News of the Weird has stopped registering cases of criminals shooting themselves). Unless you have a recording of the above documentary or cannot find a transcript to use them as a source, you may be out of luck (There is also case of another Erickson but I am not sure about his prominence...) - Skysmith (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He didn't shoot himself is the thing, he was arrested without incident on he was on his way to rob another bank while his partner in crime, his wife Jill Erickson, had a car chase with police while shooting at them out of her drivers window and then shot herself before she could be arrested. After he was arrested and during his trial he was being lead away rom the courthouse and in the elevator got his cuffs off, stole a gun, killed a US trooper before being killed by Frank Blake, a 31 year old police veteran who died from wounds he received from Erickson in the gun fight.

• • As for the documentary I saw it was an episode of The FBI Files entitled Death Pact. –– Lid^(Talk) 18:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah. You could try to use that episode as a source and reference - Skysmith (talk) 10:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered joining the project? You've already made a significant contribution.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll consider it, although I think I do not know enough to really contribute. Thank you anyway - Skysmith (talk) 10:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Martin van Butchell, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent 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. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Martin van Butchell. Toddst1 (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reposted the discussion on the open letter from the Princeton Talpiot tomb symposium 2008 scholars on both pages. I'm unsure why you removed it and wondered if you could clarify for me please. It is a notable development, and quite significant to the ongoing debate, nothing to do with POV as far as I can see. It is not my point of view that a significant number of scholars from the symposium have posted the open letter, nor is it my point of view that they have accused him of misleading the media on the response of the symposium to his theory. Indeed it is much like the rest of criticism that have been noted and permitted on wikipedia on the Talpiot tomb. I was careful to not make any pronouncement on Jacobovici or Cameron's culpability in their claims.

I am unaware that the same text cannot be posted in complimentary articles. If this is so I will remove the development from one of the articles, thank you for letting me know about it. by Metaphysics998 (talk · contribs)

I looked through your missing Buddhism articles and saw that a few of them existed, but with different names (although many of them were lacking in important information). I put in redirects for the ones I was able to locate, so they are now blue on your list. I'll work on some of the others in my free time.Kevin Borland, Esq. (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a long list - nearly a megabyte. I see you use Firefox, so you'll probably be glad to know that my Internet Explorer has issues with scrolling it ... but that has somewhat impeded zapping more links. Consider splitting it? Charles Matthews (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm. Same thing happened with the list about the medical topics and I did purge it and split it into other lists. I'll look into it. Of course, the more redirects or new articles I could remove the better - Skysmith (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of dividing the introduction into sections titled "Genes" and "History" when there are already sections on "Genetics And Albinism" and "Historical Records"?

In Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement/Requested articles you have requested an article titled Evidence storage unit. I am considering doing this article. Can you tell me a bit more about what you had in mind please, for example the organisational unit which is responsible, or the physical container...? In this regard please also see Wikipedia:Help desk#Orignator of request for new article?. Pee Tern (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that's my request, though I have added wikilinks to those. In my understanding the evidence storage unit would be a storage room in a police precinct (or similar) where they keep the evidence until it's transferred elsewhere or given back. There is usually an officer or officers responsible for record-keeping and the like. - Skysmith (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will cover both aspects. Pee Tern (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now in progress. Peet Ern (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Ventriculotomy, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Ventriculotomy is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Ventriculotomy, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Arthur Lintgen, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Lintgen. Thank you. Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article Cherry Sisters which you started has been tagged as a possible copyright infringement. Could you take a look and comment on the article's talk page? --cesarb (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed the edits you made wrt above thread, Dasam Granth.

This is the link that describes the actual contents of the book, there are those who would prefer to downplay the meanings and relevance of the Gods mentioned in the book by using adjectives like mythological or pertaining to something else, but if that was the case why does the author choose to use these names of Gods?

[4]

This link gives an authentication report and not biased or politically motivated for or against the references to the names of the Gods in question. I hope this helps? Anyway I will not revert your edits but would simply ask you to make a judgement after reading the link above. Thank you, Dave Green —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Masha and Dasha Krivoshlyapova, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent 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. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Masha and Dasha Krivoshlyapova. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really have no interest in the architect, but I am a little puzzled as to why you removed those links ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I saw no reason to include them, especially when the sentence looked unfinished - Skysmith (talk) 11:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only started editing it after i went to one of the Annalakshmi's restaurant in Perth. It is a restaurant chain. There is a link to the website of Perth branch which talks about it. Pls remove the tag and i agree it needs lot of streamlining which i have worked on and will work in the near future, Thanks Randhirreddy 02:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated Martin Hewitt (impostor), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Hewitt (impostor). 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Goochelaar (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that you created this as a redirect to Da Costa's syndrome. I have some doubts about that; could you give us your thoughts on the Da Costa's syndrome talk page? Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just gor Sarah Burton's book from Amazon UK and it turns out that the first name of this guy is Marvin, not Martin. I left a more detailed message at the talk page Talk:Martin Hewitt (impostor). The name of the article has to be corrected and the redirects have to be moved too. I'd prefer that you do it since you are the article's creator and also since I've not done any article/redirect moves myself and am a little worried about messing it up. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah. Thank you. - Skysmith (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

You put a few {{cleanup}} tags on articles that I've started in response to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistry/Requested_articles. I am certainly aware of these articles' shortcomings - they need a lot of elaboration and expansion. Apart from that, what sort of "clean up" do you propose? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there skysmith. It has been a while since I have said hello on your talk page! How are things? I see you have continued to update your pages of missing articles about wikipedia and I applaud you for that! Continue your excellent work! I am still unfortunately very busy in real life and I am unable to make any serious contributions to wikipedia (apart from the occasional redirect, cleanup of a typo, addition of a wikiproject tag page,etc from time to time). I might be able to take a look at your medical related pages in a few months though, depending how things turn out in real life with many exams and assignments to look forward to. Wish me luck haha!

Anyway I also wanted to show you (unless you already know about it already) a project I saw while browsing my watchlist one day regarding the implementation of thousands of places throughout the world onto wikipedia. The bot in question has the potential to create close to 2 million articles. Yup that's right! However, there is a massive discussion at the village pump and after much scrutiny, the level of activity on the bot will be heavily monitored and such (as was initially planned to begin with but the village pump discussion got a bit out of hand). As a contributor of new articles, I would love to see your oppinion on this (be it support or oppose) and if you want, you are more than welcoem to help with the project. It is located here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Places and here is an FAQ of the project: User:FritzpollBot/FAQ. Here is also the village pump dicussion: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/FritzpollBot. In terms of ways you can help, I believe you once told me that you had a vast amount of sources in ways that you find your many articles to be potentially added to wikipedia. So if you are able to muster up a number of sources for each of the places or able to find information about a certain town/city/village/etc of a country or 2 that would be great. I also saw that you also have a list of places & locations and maybe that list can be joined with the list of places to further strengthen their notability. Some users are arguing against the bot, saying that there is no inherent notability about these places being created etc etc. But anyway, I am not forcing you to help, you of course have a life and if you are able to just have a look and say: "yeah this is cool, go for it" that's more than enough. I just thought of you when it was requested that there be multiple sources added for each article place than the current 2 (or 3 I am not sure). All the best :). Calaka (talk) 06:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and this is your list that I was refering to in case you were wondering: User:Skysmith/Missing articles about Locations. Hehe cheers!Calaka (talk) 06:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Skysmith, thanks for your speedy & friendly reply about the updates here and there. The first has one more correction -- Vaid Pye a misspelling for David Pye -- and the second list is as useful and interesting as the first. All best to you. --Lockley (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Argh - Pye is so obvious it's a embarrassment. Thank you - Skysmith (talk) 08:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the Tillamook page; you can now remove it from your list, I guess (although i'm not sure if it might be done automatically?) Ironholds 22:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd rather purge the pages when I update them so I can keep track of the progress. Thank you - Skysmith (talk) 10:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thanks for the shout-out here :) I've been working a bit on the list, and have linked to it from WP:PHARM. Hopefully, this will attract more folks to it, and we'll have those red links blue in no time... Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You welcome - Skysmith (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Skysmith, thanks for giving Bearian and myself a shout-out on your Missing topics about law & law enforcement page. --Eastlaw (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You welcome - Skysmith (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed that you reverted this edit I made to the Computer Audition article. In your description you seem to imply that my edit was "vandalism". In actuality, I was making a good faith attempt to clean up ambiguous links. I am working on every single page that links to the ambiguous term bandwidth, cleaning up those and other ambiguous terms as I find them. I thought I should contact you and ask if there is something you think I am doing wrong, especially to describe it as vandalism. No hard feelings, I just was very surprised. I am open to constructive criticism. Best wishes, CosineKitty (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have made the assumption that your rollback in Computer Audition was accidental, and I reinstated my changes. I noticed you added the Artificial intelligence category to the article, and I thought that was a good change, so I put that back in. CosineKitty (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did not refer to your edits but the earlier one that did remove the category (there are many of those); the rest of the changes in the rollback were unfortunate. Keep up the good work - Skysmith (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this editor seems to have a anti pakistan bias i need a neutral editor who isnt islamophobic or anti pakistani. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.132.210 (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Pro-Pakistan POV is not NPOV, either - Skysmith (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I had no idea you'd made this list. It's great. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you fully checked the text? When I encountered the blatant copyvio, I didn't have time to check for and remove them all, and I still haven't. If you remove the copyvio tag, it is my understanding (perhaps wrong) that you are taking responsibility for having verified that none of the current text is a copyvio. Have you done that?[5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged Buffalo Exchange for speedy deletion. I was able to rescue the article by adding references which indicate it is a national chain, not just a local store. --Eastmain (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...here.

Should be nominated for deletion.

Cheers mate!

Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 12:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the list might need updating. :)

Cheers mate!

Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 11:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Oliver Sacks, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/01/books/01sack.html, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Oliver Sacks and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Oliver Sacks with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Oliver Sacks.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:Oliver Sacks/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:Oliver Sacks saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You personally assured me that you had checked Oliver Sacks for copyvios when you removed the copyvio tag,[6] based on http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,1429477,00.html . I've now found additional copyvios from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/01/books/01sack.html . Please do NOT remove the copyvio tag again unless you are certain the entire text has been checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm. Looks like sentences that could be rewritten. all I can say is that that's not my work and I still object to turning the whole article as a copyvio - Skysmith (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think we have any control over that. When I added the subst template to the top of the article, it blanked the text. I guess that's some Wiki policy or procedure. Someone needs to rewrite the entire article, avoiding plagiarism, and I don't have time right away. I can get to it in bits and pieces, but probably not until September. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You [reverted a minor edit] I made earlier regarding references in pop culture, though there was no specific reason for this revision. Can you please clarify? Thanks. 74.242.104.56 (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly. Wikipedia discourages pop culture trivia references in these days (because there has been too many). If the self-immolation is only referred to, this tidbit may not be relevant. Thank you. - Skysmith (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up, then. I can understand how trivia sections would be deemed unnecessary, though I personally tend to look the other way in lieu of other light-hearted Wiki content. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost, but its public nature tends to open it up to a less serious / professional side, as well. When I first started editing Wikipedia seriously, I was discouraged with trying to clean-up articles with heavy fancruft, putting up AfD nominations for such articles only to be disappointed when the AfD discussions were polluted with sockpuppets and proxies, dealing with harassment from less experienced editors who were zealous about featuring their content in an encyclopedia as if it were MySpace, and having content spuriously reverted over and over again because it made an article "owner" unhappy. Eventually, I just accepted that as long as Wikipedia is a public project, the ideas of fair consensus and centralized oversight just aren't going to work. Hence, I no longer hold an account here; I only permit myself to make minor contributions.

But I don't mean to go off on a tangent here. If you would like to discourage trivia sections, I would support you there. However, unless strictly enforced by administration, it will be an effort spent in vain. 74.242.119.225 (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite agreed. Limiting trivia is official policy nowadays. See Wikipedia:Trivia sections - Skysmith (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the PROD you placed on this article because it had been nominated and contested before, and was therefore invalid. It should instead be taken to AfD. Ros0709 (talk) 09:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Skysmith,

I have a couple of suggestions for your missing economics topics list.

Could 'cast push inflation' perhaps refer to Cost push inflation?

At a guess, 'constant returns' would be short for Constant Returns to scale.

'Built-in stabiliser' is another way of saying automatic stabiliser.

cheerio, Fartsmith (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first is possible, since it does seem to be a typo. I am not sure about the second. The third, however, could be a good candidate for a redirect.

Keep up the good work. Have you checked the other relevant lists? - Skysmith (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with maintaining a newly created stub, but I am afraid I do not really understand. The greater part of that stub consists of information that is firstly universally known to just about any inhabitant of the city, and secondly, can be easily looked up in any atlas or plan. Google Maps will perfectly do. I do wonder why anybody could think that that sort of information needs referencing. The shorter second paragraph likewise contains nothing that is not universally known among the locals, and any tourist guide or even the city's official homepage will inform the inquisitive reader about further details. Do you really believe that taht sort of sources should be used for referencing, or do you just happen to tag articles because of a formality? I am asking this without any prejudice or hostility. Just curious. Benevolent Spectator (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately all info needs referencing in Wikipedia. And even if the locals would know everything, the world at large does not know it. - Skysmith (talk) 10:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I won't discuss the need for references in the second paragraph, but when it comes to cartographic information, do you really want references for things that anybody can look up in Google Maps or any other map? See "Geographic pieces of information easily verified by a nonspecialized map" in WP:CK. Benevolent Spectator (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many Wikipedia articles do have links to coordinates in geohack (like this). And to answer your previous question, if I hadn't included the tag, somebody else would have - Skysmith (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- you were correct to revert the change made by an IP today, but since the change was clearly well-intentioned, it would have been nice to use an informative edit message instead of the default one. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you place a {{db}} tag on a page, as you did no 8 ivanhoe, you should place the suggested note on the author's talk page to give them an opportunity to fix the page.WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Fix an "to let" ad? - Skysmith (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Kibitka, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kibitka. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? ssr (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect was wrongly listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kibitka. I've now listed this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 September 12#Kibitka → Yurt. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the purpose or wisdom of most of the categories you've placed this page in, but user sub-pages should most certainly not be in stub categories. I assumed you'd placed the categories there for navigational convenience, hence my turning them into links. Alai (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• - First, I did not place most of these. Second, my missing topics places are in their own category (crated by somebody else, too.) which is not in the main articlespace. I mainly decided to go along with it. However, I do think that your removal of the stub category is appropriate - Skysmith (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it's the stub category that brought the page to my attention, and that seems the most clear-cut case, I'll take as an enlightened compromise. Alai (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing: 11:56, 10 October 2008 (hist) (diff) Concierge ‎ ??(revert soam)?? while I accept the removal of the web link referenced in my contribution, I respectfully question the deletion of the entire paragraph ?!! Your thoughts are much appreciated! Regards, Whiteceiling —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whiteceiling (talk • contribs) 17:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Whiteceiling (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the self-promotional biography inserted by Alamomike303 into this article. He has since tried to re-insert it on a couple of occasions, both of which I have undone. I have pointed out that not only does he appear to be breaching WP:COI by writing his own biography but the material would also be out of place even if it was added by someone else. Although he refers to having competed in "impalement" competitions this is different to the subject matter of the Impalement arts article, which is about entertainment performers. Knife throwing as a competitive sport has a place in the separate knife throwing article - where Alamomike303 is also attempting to put the same biography. I've deliberately refrained from entering into any sort of edit war with him on that article as I want to concentrate on the IA one - but you or others might want to decide whether his edits at knife throwing are also in breach of WP:COI. Circusandmagicfan (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan[reply]

Hi there. When you add a welcome template to a user’s page please remember to substitute it. If wish to reply to this message please use my talk page and if you need help feel free to talk to me there or you may find Wikipedia:SUB helpful. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 16:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, reading it I don't know how I would have nominated it - must've gotten mixed up with another page. I hope I didn't inconvenience you too much. Apologies, \ / (⁂) 11:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I bluelinked Hongcheng with Change water to oil I covered Hongcheng with Hongcheng Magic Liquid. Mind you, he sort of falls under BPL1E, so the article needs to center more on the magical liquid than on the person himself. Btw, I wouldn't bluelink Hongcheng's name to this article, because there are several persons with the same name on China. I counted a biologist, a computer scientist and several other engineers, all publishing on scientific journals. The article names already has "Hangcheng", which is more than enough to find the relevant info on google. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point. I am going to update the missing topics page as soon as I can find time, and that includes removing the name. - Skysmith (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you tagged the page Dentist chair for speedy deletion with the reason "patent nonsense". While that's a valid reason for speedy deletion in general, this page does not qualify for speedy deletion under that criterion because it is not nonsensical. If you still want the page to be deleted, please consider tagging it with a speedy deletion template which does apply, redirecting it to another page, or using the WP:AFD process. Thanks! --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 13:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deprodded Blessed event as the proper way to get rid of a redirect is through redirects for discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Skysmith— I undid your edit of an unsourced comment in George Bernard Shaw because the article on the London School of Economics (History section) documents his role in founding it. Wugo (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Hemlock Society, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

It's an ad or something. Terrible, terrible things have been done to this article. The horror.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent 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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, 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. Remurmur (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]